Deepti Anil Devasthali vs The State Of Maharashtra
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010044322014
2026:BHC-AS:42427-DB
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
PRADNYA
MAKARAND
BHOGALE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4138 OF 2013
Digitally signed by
PRADNYA
MAKARAND
BHOGALE
Date: 2026.10.17
16:54:39 +0530
Deepti Anil Devasthali and anr. … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.23167 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4138 OF 2013
Deepti Anil Devasthali and anr. … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.331 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4138 OF 2013
Deepti Anil Devasthali and anr. … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4138 OF 2013
Deepti Anil Devasthali and anr. … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.137 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4138 OF 2013
1
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
Deepti Anil Devasthali and anr. … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.231 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4138 OF 2013
Deepti Anil Devasthali and anr. … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.422 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4138 OF 2013
Deepti Anil Devasthali and anr. … Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .… Respondent
Mr. N. N. Gawankar, Amicus Curiae a/w Mr. Shreyas N.
Gawankar, Mr. Manas N. Gawankar, for the petitioners.
Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the respondent-State.
Ms. Leena Devasthali, petitioner No.2-present-in-person.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
DATE : 16 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. The petitioners were convicted by the Sessions Court,
2
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
Pune in Sessions Case No.98 of 2007, for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 r/w 120B, 364A r/w 120B, 387 r/w 120B, 468
r/w 120B, 328 r/w 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, for
short) and certain other sections for lesser offences. The Trial
Judge sentenced the petitioners to death on two counts i.e. Section
302 r/w 120B and Section 364A r/w 120B of IPC. The petitioners
th
were arrested on 7 July 2006.
2. The allegations for which the petitioners were tried were
extremely serious. Between March 2006 to July 2006 the
applicant and her mother – co-accused conspired and planned the
offence for ransom. They established fake detective agency and
published advertisement in newspaper to recruit people for the
same. Three persons were engaged who were lured that they
would be hired if they fulfilled the task of keeping watch on Dr.
‘M’, Orthopedic Surgeon of Yashwantrao Chavan Memorial
Hospital, Pimpri. A room at Shantanu Lodge was hired. The
proposed recruits were trained and the petitioner visited Dr. ‘M’
under the pretext of offering him visiting faculty post at Omkar
Charitable Trust. Dr. ‘M’ was invited for a meeting at Shantanu
nd
Lodge at 4:00 p.m. on 2 July 2006. After discussing the prospect
with wife, Dr. ‘M’ left his residence at 3:45 p.m. to meet accused at
3
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
Shantanu Lodge, who had impersonated themselves. Immediately
on arrival of Dr. ‘M’, the co-accused, i.e. recruits of the petitioner’s
detective agency caught hold of his legs and gagged his mouth
whereafter the detenue ‘L’ administered him an injection causing
him to fall unconscious. Thereafter, they placed him in Martiz Car
and headed to Karve Road, where detenue ‘D’ (applicant) was
waiting. On arrival both the accused women, relieved the
accompanying recruits (co-accused) and proceeded further. In the
meantime, while wife of Dr. ‘M’ was unable to access and
approach or reach him on phone, on persistent calling, the wife of
Dr. ‘M’, was threatened to pay ransom of Rs.25,00,000/-. She
therefore informed all family members, doctors and relatives and
a report was lodged at Deccan Gymkhana Police Station setting
the investigation into motion. On accosting the accused, it
transpired that both the women life convicts had not only killed
the Doctor for ransom; but in order to destroy evidence, they cut
the body into pieces and threw those in the mountain pass at
Katraj. Thus, the offence was registered against the detenues and
others as CR No.386 of 2006 for the aforesaid offences at Deccan
Gymkhana Police Station.
3. The applicant along with her mother and other accused
4
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
were tried at the Sessions Court, Pune in Sessions Case No.98 of
th
2007 and convicted on 27 December 2007 with sentence as
follows :-
IPC Section Sentence Awarded Fine Default Sentence
(if fine not paid)
302 read with Death (to be hanged by Rs.10,000 3 months
120B the neck until dead)
364A read with Death (to be hanged by Rs.10,000 3 months
120B the neck until dead)
387 read with 7 years’ imprisonment Rs.5,000 3 months
120B
419 read with 3 years’ imprisonment Rs.10,000 3 months
120B
465 read with 2 years’ imprisonment Rs.3,000 3 months
120B
468 read with 5 years’ imprisonment Rs.10,000 3 months
120B
471 read with 3 years’ imprisonment Rs.1,000 1 month
120B
328 read with 7 years’ imprisonment Rs.10,000 6 months
120B
342 read with 1 year’s imprisonment (Not shown
120B in the
excerpt)
(Not shown)
201 read with 7 years’ imprisonment (Not shown
120B in the
excerpt)
(Not shown)
4. The petitioners challenged their conviction in Criminal
Appeal No.173 of 2008 in this Court which was heard along with
Confirmation Case No.1 of 2008. The Criminal Appeal was heard
th
by this Court and by the judgment and order dated 30 September
2009, this Court partly allowed the criminal appeal by acquitting
5
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w
120B and under Section 201 r/w 120B of IPC. The following table
indicates the details of the punishment imposed by this Court in
the confirmation case and the appeal :-
IPC Section Sentence Awarded Fine Default Sentence
(if fine not paid)
302 read with Acquitted ------ ------
120B
364A read with Life Rs.10,000 3 months
120B
387 read with 7 years’ imprisonment Rs.5,000 3 months
120B
419 read with 3 years’ imprisonment Rs.10,000 3 months
120B
465 read with 2 years’ imprisonment Rs.3,000 3 months
120B
468 read with 5 years’ imprisonment Rs.10,000 3 months
120B
471 read with 3 years’ imprisonment Rs.1,000 1 month
120B
328 read with 7 years’ imprisonment Rs.10,000 6 months
120B
342 read with 1 year’s imprisonment (Not shown
120B in the
excerpt)
(Not shown)
201 read with 7 years’ imprisonment (Not shown
120B in the
excerpt)
(Not shown)
5. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that the
petitioners have filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
challenging the judgment and order passed by this Court. So also,
the Criminal Application No.958 of 2011 challenging the acquittal
6
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
of the petitioners under Section 302 r/w 120B of IPC and for other
offences is pending.
6. After the criminal appeal was decided by this Court and
during the pendency of the SLP, the petitioners have filed the
present writ petition in the year 2013. In the said writ petition
several criminal applications have been filed. The applications
pertain to making complaints/allegations against the jail
st
authorities. A consolidated reply was filed by the State dated 21
November 2022 dealing with these allegations.
7. The petitioners were undergoing the sentence at Yerwada
Women’s Prison, Pune. So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned,
upon completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment and 60 years
of age, she was released by the respondent-State.
8. Pending the writ petition, the respondent passed an
nd
order dated 22 September 2025, categorising the case of
petitioner No.1 under category 7(a) of Government Resolution
th th
(“GR”) dated 11 May 1992 and category 6(d) of GR dated 15
March 2010, requiring petitioner No.1 to undergo 30 years of
imprisonment with remissions. Petitioner No.1 has challenged the
impugned order by filing Interim Application (Stamp) No.23167 of
2025.
7
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
9. This Court requested Mr. Gawankar, learned counsel to
appear as Amicus in the matter. Mr. Gawankar submitted that the
impugned order cannot be sustained as category 7(a) / 6(d) have
wrongly been applied by the respondent. It is submitted that those
categories would be applicable if the offence of murder was proved
against the petitioner No.1. It is submitted that since the
petitioner No.1 (applicant) was acquitted of the charge punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and was convicted under Section 364A
and sentence to suffer imprisonment for life, therefore, category
7(a) of 1992 GR will have no application. Likewise, it is submitted
that category 6(d) of 2010 GR will be applicable if the charge
punishable under Section 302 of IPC stands proved. Since the
petitioner No.1 was acquitted of the charge of murder, learned
counsel submits, that category 6(d) or even Annexure-I of 2010
GR has no application to the petitioner’s case.
10. Ms. Mhatre, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the application. It is submitted that the present case
pertains to two life convicts, sentenced for serious offences. Our
attention is invited to the detailed affidavit-in-reply filed by the
respondents affirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
rd
Western Region, Pune-6 dated 23 July 2026. Learned APP
8
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
submitted that in the present case it is necessary to unleash the
truth and bring out the facts, not only pertaining to the germane
offence, but also the demeanour of the petitioner herein and her
advocate mother, who was also life convict with her. It is
submitted that the petitioner as well as the co-accused mother,
both life convicts are cantankerous and notorious women who
have been flouting rules of the prison and were orally
reprimanded several times by the Jail Superintendent and other
authorities. It is submitted that immediately on being released
prematurely from prison, merely for having completed 60 years of
rd
age on 23 May 2025, the detenue ‘L’ has moved several
applications making myriad frivolous, vexatious and baseless
allegations, not only against the prison authorities; but also
against the judiciary, which will be clear from the written
th
arguments also filed by her on 25 May 2026. Learned APP
submitted that on this very count, her interim application
deserves to be dismissed in limine by saddling heavy exemplary
costs. It is submitted that the present application is as frivolous
and baseless as the other applications filed.
11. The stand of the respondent is as under :-
(A) Object of premature release :
9
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
Considering life convict for premature release serves the
purpose of showing mercy to the prisoner and helping his
rehabilitation, if he demonstrates good conduct or in case of
change of conditions or special conditions. As such this purpose
needs to be borne in mind by the Government while considering
pre-release.
(B) Legal provisions concerning commutation of
sentence :
i. Section 433 of CrPC confers power on the Government to
commute sentence without consent of the convict;
ii. Section 433A of CrPC imposes restriction on the powers
of remission or commutation and mandates undergoing atleast 14
years’ imprisonment to be eligible for commutation;
iii. Section 434 of CrPC confers concurrent power on the
Central Government to commute death sentence;
iv. Section 435 of CrPC mandates State Government to act
in consultation with the Central Government in certain cases;
v. Section 59 of the Prisons Act.
(C) Government Resolutions from 1978 to 2010 :
In consonance with the powers vested in it vide Section
10
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
433A of CrPC, various guidelines were issued by the Government
from time to time for categorisation of the crime with
corresponding total periods of imprisonment, right from 1971 till
date. These guidelines lay down a broad division of the patterns of
crimes for the purpose of premature release of prisoners
sentenced to imprisonment for life. Thus, following guidelines
were issued and prevailed from time to time :
th
a) Guidelines dated 16 November 1978 :
Due to amendment to the CrPC and introduction of
section CrPC by the Amendment Act, 1978, the prevailing
guidelines of 1978 became inapplicable to the prisoners covered
by section 433A of CrPC leading to issue of revised guidelines on
th
11 May 1992.
th
b) Guidelines dated 11 May 1992 :
No guidelines were framed for those convicts undergoing
life sentence and not covered by section 433A of CrPC, leading to
revising of guidelines for premature release of life convicts not
covered under section 433A.
th
c) Guidelines dated 18 June 2008 :
All the previous prevailing guidelines were applicable to
11
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
prisoners committing crime under IPC, however, they did not
cover grave offences under stringent laws like TADA, MCOCA,
POTA, etc., necessitating further revision of the said guidelines to
include the same.
th
d) Guidelines dated 15 March 2010 :
After a thoughtful consideration of all earlier guidelines
these guidelines which are in force, cover life imprisonment of
convicts for grave offences under TADA, MCOCA, POTA, etc.
These are applicable to prisoners convicts on or after the date of
th
issue of this Government Resolution dated 15 March 2010. It
further provides for completion of 12 years’ actual imprisonment
to be considered for review under the “14-year rule”, to which
section 433A of CrPC is applicable and after 8 years to which
section 433A of CrPC is not applicable. It also excludes the
prisoners convicted for offences against the State or terrorist
activities of organised crime from being considered for open
prison. Annexed hereto and marked as "Exhibit - A Collectively"
are the extracts of the abovementioned guidelines.
(D) Opinions of various Authorities on pre-release :
th
a) District and Sessions Court dated 7 August 2018 and
th
12 November 2020 :
12
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
The Sessions Court opined that in view of pendency of
Criminal Appeal at the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it could not opine
on convicts 14-year remission proposal.
th
b) ACP, Crime -II, Pune City dated 20 November 2015 :
The ACP opposed premature release of the petitioner
until completion of life sentence.
th
c) District Magistrate, Pune City dated 19 December 2015 :
The ACP opposed premature release of the petitioner
until completion of life sentence.
d) Superintendent’s recommendation :
The Superintendent recommended categorisation of
th
petitioner and co-convict under clause 7(a) of GR dated 11 May
th
1992, under clause 8 of GR dated 11 April 2008 and under clause
th
6(d) of GR dated 15 March 2010. Further recommended 30 years
th
life imprisonment in view of the prevailing GR dated 15 March
2010.
th
e) Advisory Board dated 29 December 2018 :
The Advisory Board has not recommended premature
release of the petitioner.
f) Additional Director General of Police and Inspector
13
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
General of Prisons :
They both have not recommended convict’s premature
release considering the gravity of the offence and have left the
decision to the Government.
Thus, accordingly, the State Government vide Order
nd
dated 22 September 2025 categorised the petitioner under
th
clause 6(d) of GR dated 15 March 2010 and directed her release
after completion of 30 years of imprisonment with remission.
The categorisation of the petitioner is thus absolutely apt
and justified, considering the nature of offence, gravity of offence
and opinions of the various Authorities. Consequently, she does
not deserve to be pre-released and has to complete 30 years of
imprisonment with remission.
It may be argued that when accused No. 2 viz. Leena
rd
Devasthali i.e. mother and co-convict was pre-released on 23
May 2025, after 19 years of imprisonment, accused No.1 i.e.
petitioner would also be entitled to such pre-release since the
offence is the same. However, it is pertinent to note that accused
No. 2 viz. Leena Devasthali i.e. mother and co-convict was pre-
released on the ground of her completing 60 years of age as per
th
GR dated 10 January 2006. Annexed hereto and marked as
14
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
"Exhibit - B" is a copy of Government Resolution dated
10.01.2006 pertaining to release of women convicts having
attained 60 years of age.
II. The petitioner was deliberately placed in wrong category
so as to avoid releasing her and to detain her wrongfully :
The Advocate for petitioner and Mother of present
detenue/Life convict, has admitted having met the Secretary to
the Hon'ble Home Minister, as the Hon’ble Home Minister is the
highest authority for prisons, and she trusted him, requesting for
release of her daughter, and handed over 2 applications against
th
Jail authorities, on 18 September 2025, who assured that he will
put up the matter before the Hon’ble Home Minister. She further
nd
contends that on 22 September 2025, an illegal order was passed
by the Hon’ble Home Minister, subjecting the petitioner to
conditions to be abided for pre-release.
It is pertinent to note that the categorisation of the Life
convicts is by the Home Department as per Resolution, which also
empowers it to impose appropriate conditions for the pre-release
nd
as per Section 432(4) of CrPC. Besides, the order dated 22
September 2025 imposing the conditions is also passed by the
Hon’ble Home Minister, in whom the petitioner and her mother
15
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
reposed complete confidence. Further, the said order has been
passed after perusing the entire criminal record of the petitioner,
the observations of 2 courts, opinions of the District Magistrate as
well as Police, in a reasoned manner. Hence, said allegation stated
in clause (a) above, is baseless and untenable, petitioner would
not be justified in alleging that Jail authorities detained the
petitioner deliberately, by wrong categorisation, neither of which
may be Jail authorities.
12. It is submitted that pre-release of convict is not a
matter of right; but an empathetic approach adopted upon
request. As per procedure, all pre-release convicts are subjected to
appropriate conditions, depending upon each case. Needless to
state that the conditions are distinct in each case and conditions
imposed on any convict cannot be compared. It is submitted that
there is nothing on record to point out or even suggest any bad or
wrong behaviour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the
th
petitioner had been reprimanded several times orally, and on 30
May 2014 was also reprimanded in writing, for misconduct in jail,
violating the prison rules.
13. We have heard learned Amicus for the petitioners and
learned APP for the respondent-State. We have perused the
16
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
interim application in pending writ petition. We have perused the
materials on record and also the other applications filed by the
petitioners.
14. At the outset it would be pertinent to reproduce the
th
GR dated 15 March 2010 and the Annexure-I and II thereunder
in its entirety for a proper appreciation of the submissions of
learned counsel to determine whether the categorisation of the
petitioner No.1 by the respondent-State is correct or otherwise.
Guidelines for premature release under
the “14 Year Rule” of prisoners
serving life sentence.
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
Home Department,
Government Resolution No. RLP-1006/C.R. 621/PRS 3,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
th
Dated 15 March, 2010.
Read : 1. Government Letter, Home Department, No.RLP 1077/
th
348/PRS-3, dated 16 November, 1978,
2. Government Letter, Home Department, No.RLP 1092/
th
13/252/PRS-3, dated 11 May, 1992
3. Government Resolution, Home Department, No.RLP
th
1006/C.R. 621/PRS-3, dated 11 April, 2008 and
th
13 June, 2008.
Resolution
Government had revised guidelines for premature release of prisoners
undergoing life sentences from time to time. These guidelines are applicable to
prisoners committing crimes mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. However, the said
guidelines does not cover grave offences such as life imprisonment under stringent
laws like TADA, MCOCA, POTA etc. Therefore, in exercise of power vested in it
under section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the State Government has
th
decided to modify the existing guidelines of even number, dated 11 April, 2008 and
th
dated 13 June, 2008 and pleased to sanction revised guidelines. These revised
guidelines are enclosed herewith as Annexure I and Annexure II. These guidelines
will applicable to the prisoners who are convicted on or after the date of issue of this
Government Resolution.
2. In case of life convicts covered under these guidelines, the process of review
shall commence after completion of 12 years of actual imprisonment for review
17
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
under the “14 Year Rule” to which provision of section of 433-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure are applicable and after completion of eight years to which
provisions of section of 433-A of the code is not applicable. Prisoners convicted for
offences against State or in terrorist activities or organised crime or similar nature of
activities will not be selected for open prison.
3. If there is a difference of opinion between the Prison Advisory Board and
Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State Pune, Inspector General of Prisons
shall record the specific reasons in support of his recommendations.
4. The State Government reserves its rights to remit any sentence to release the
prisoners only after undergoing imprisonment in excess for which there is no
specific guidelines as mentioned in the annexures enclosed with this Government
Resolution.
By Order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,
Sd/-
(S.C. Mondkar)
Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Home Department.
To,
The Principal Secretary to the Governor of Maharashtra,
The Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, State of Maharashtra.
The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
The Principal Secretary (A. & S.), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
The Secretary to the Deputy Chief Minister,
The Private Secretary to the Minister (Home),
The Private Secretary to the Minister for State (Prisons),
The Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State, Pune (5 copies),
All Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
All Superintendents of Central / District / Open Prison (2 copies),
All Desks, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
The Government Pleader, High Court of Mumbai (Appellate Branch) / Bench at
Nagpur and Aurangabad (5 copies)
The Select File, Desk, PRS - 3.
Annexure I
Cate
Sub
Cate
gory
Categorisation of Crime Period of imprisonment
gory
to be undergone
No.
including remissions
subject to a minimum of
14 years of Actual
Imprisonment
including Set-off
period.
18
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
1. OFFENCES RELATING TO
CRIME BY WOMEN.
(a) Where the convict has no previous
criminal history and has committed
the murder in an individual capacity
in a moment of anger and without
premeditation or under physical,
mental provocation.
18
(b) Where the convict has committed
the murder with premeditation or
by a gang.
20
OFFENCES RELATING TO
2. CRIME AGAINST WOMEN
AND MINORS.
(a) Where the convict has no previous
criminal history and has committed
the murder in an individual capacity
in a moment of anger and without
premeditation.
20
(b) Where the crime as mentioned
above committed with
premeditation.
22
(c) Where the crime is committed with
exceptional violence and or with
brutality or death of victim due to
burns.
26
(d) 28
Murder with rape
MURDERS ARISING OUT OF
LAND DISPUTE, FAMILY
FEUDS, FAMILY PRESTIGE
AND SUPERSTITION.
3.
(a) If the offence is committed in
individual capacity and without
premeditation.
20
(b) Crime committed as above with
premeditation, either individually
or by a gang.
22
MURDERS FOR OTHER
4.
REASONS.
(a) Where the murder is committed
without premeditation in an
individual capacity and the person
has no previous criminal history.
20
(b) Murder committed with 22
premeditation, or a person having
19
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
criminal history.
(c) Murder resulting from trade union 22
activities and business rivalry.
(d) Murder committed by more than 24
one person/group of persons.
(e) Murder committed with exceptional
violence/brutality/kidnapping.
Murders committed by dacoits and
robbers in the act of committing
dacoities and robberies.
Murder committed by bootleggers,
gamblers, flesh traders etc.
26
MURDER FOR POLITICAL
5.
REASONS.
(a) Murders arising out of political
rivalry and political interest without
premeditation
24
(b) Murder arising out of political
rivalry and political interest, with
premeditation.
26
MURDER FOR SERIOUS
6.
OFFENCES.
(a) Murder committed by Gangsters, 28
Contract killers, Racketeers etc.
(b) Persons already convicted for life 30
and is convicted again for murder.
(c) Convict awarded more than one life
sentenced and sentences running
concurrently.
30
(d) Prisoners whose death sentence has
been commuted to life
imprisonment.
30
PUNISHMENT UNDER THE
SPECIAL ACTS SUCH AS
TADA, MCOCA, POTA FOR
MURDER.
7.
Offences committed against the
State/ Offences committed by
extremists/ terrorists / Organised
crimes or similar nature of
offences :-
(a) 40
Convict awarded one life sentence.
(b) Convict awarded two life sentences 50
and sentences running
20
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
concurrently.
(c) Convict awarded more than two life
sentence and sentences running
concurrently.
60
Any other such offences which are
of exceptional / heinous nature and
8.
not specifically covered in the above
categories.
The State Government will
decide individual cases on
merit.
Annexure II
PERSONS GUILTY OF OFFENCES NOT INVOLVING MURDER WHO
ARE SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT WHERE SECTION 433 (A)
OF CRPC IS NOT APPLICABLE.
Cate I.P.C. Nature of Offence Period of
gory Section imprisonment to
be undergone
including
remissions
subject to the
minimum of 10
years of actual
imprisonment
including set off
period.
1 304,
304(a),
307
Persons guilty of homicides not
amounting to murder, causing death
by negligence, attempt to murder etc.
14
2 304(b) Persons guilty of causing Death for 20
Dowry.
3 311 Persons guilty under this section. 14
(Thugs)
4(a) 313, Persons guilty of causing miscarriage
314 of unborn child without woman’s
consent or any such act which results
in her death.
14
4(b) In case such victim is minor. 16
5 326, Persons guilty of causing grievous hurt 14
329 under these sections.
6 363 Persons guilty of kidnapping for 18
(A)(2) maiming.
7(a) 364 Persons guilty of kidnapping for 16
ransom.
7(b) 364 In such case victim is minor. 18
21
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
8(a) 376 Persons guilty in Rape cases. 18
8(b) 376 Where victim is minor. 20
8(c) 376(1) Rape of physically handicapped or
mentally retarded female, pregnant
woman, gang rape or custodial rape.
22
9 388to Persons guilty of extortion, robbery, 14
400 dacoity etc under these sections.
10 409 Persons guilty of criminal breach of 14
trust under this section.
11 412, Person guilty of offences related to 14
413 stolen property under these sections.
12 436, Person guilty of mischief described 14
438 under these section
13 449 Person guilty of house-tress pass in
order to commit offence punishable
with death.
20
14 459 Person guilty of causing grievous hurt
whilst committing house-break or
house tress pass.
14
15 460 Person guilty of causing grievous hurt
or death while committing of house-
tress pass or house breaking.
18
16 467,
472,
474,
475,
489A,
489B,
489D
Person guilty of forgery or counterfeit 14
substances etc.
17 222, Persons guilty of offences described 20
225 under these sections.
18 232,
238,
255
Offences relating to of coin and
Government Stamps, Counterfeiting
Government Stamp.
20
19 Offences against the State. 30
20 Offences by extremists / terrorists /
organised crimes or similar nature of
offences.
40
21 Any other such offences which are not
specifically covered in above
categories.
The State
Government will
decide individual
cases on merit.
22
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
15. The present application pertains to categorisation of the
petitioner No.1. Learned APP, supporting the stand of the State
Government urged that the cantankerous nature of the petitioner
No.1’s mother as well as the bald allegations made against the
respondents should be an important factor weighing with this
Court in dismissing the application. It is submitted that the
conduct of the petitioner No.1 as well as her mother cannot be
ignored. We must bear in mind that since the question of liberty
of the petitioner No.1 involved, a broad approach has to be
adopted. Assistance the learned Amicus was sought to present the
petitioner No.1’s case. Despite the presence of the Amicus, the
petitioner No.1’s mother has been insisting that since it is the
question of release of her daughter who is languishing in jail, she
should be permitted to make submissions. We do find substance
in the concern raised by the learned APP about the manner in
which applications after applications are being filed. We have
therefore heard the learned APP on the aspect of categorisation
since the question of liberty of the petitioner No.1 is involved. No
doubt the allegation made against the petitioners is very serious.
Learned APP has taken pains to point out the gruesome manner in
which the offence took place and that even against the order under
23
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
Section 302 of IPC the SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The question before us is whether we should defer the
consideration of this application till the SLP is decided as urged by
the learned APP; or if on behalf of the petitioners a case is made
out that the petitioner No.1 is wrongly categorised, should this
Court proceed to pass appropriate orders subject to imposing
appropriate conditions.
16. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioner No.1 that
the impugned order cannot be sustained as category 7(a) / 6(d)
has been wrongly applied by the respondent. Category 7(a) of the
th
GR dated 11 May 1992 reads as under :-
“7. DEATH SENTENCE COMMUTED TO LIFE
IMPRISONMENT :-
a) Prisoners in whose cases death 30 years.
sentence has been commuted
to life imprisonment.”
th
17. Category 6(d) of the GR dated 15 March 2010 reads as
under :-
“6. MURDER FOR SERIOUS OFFENCES :-
d) Prisoners whose death sentence 30 years
has been commuted to life
imprisonment.
18. In our view the aforesaid categories would be applicable
24
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
if the offence of murder was proved against the petitioner No.1. In
the present case the petitioner No.1 was acquitted of the charge
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was convicted under
Section 364A and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
Therefore, category 7(a) of the 1992 GR will have no application.
19. So far as category 6(d) is concerned, we are of the view
that the same will be applicable if charge punishable under
Section 302 of IPC stands proved. In the light of the judgment and
order of this Court in appeal, the petitioner No.1 was acquitted of
the charge of murder. Therefore, category 6(d) or even Annexure-I
of the 2010 GR has no application to the case of the petitioner
No.1.
20. The government policy formulated by respondent No.1
th
vide GR dated 15 March 2010, essentially makes two
compartments, namely, Annexure-I and Annexure-II. Annexure-I
deals with “Offences Involving Murders”, whereas Annexure-II
deals with “Offences Not Involving Murders”; the case of
petitioner No.1 will not fall within Annexure-I as she was
acquitted from the charge of murder.
21. It is pertinent to note that category 7(a) of Annexure-II
speaks of conviction under Section 364 of IPC but does not make
25
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
provision for conviction under Section 364A of IPC. The title of
category 7(a) mentions “Section 364”, but in the body provides for
“persons guilty of kidnapping for ransom”. Section 364 of IPC
does not speak of “Ransom”, but Section 364A does mention
ransom. Thus, we find and as submitted by learned Amicus, the
category leaves an ambiguity in heading of the section and in the
description provided for.
22. In this context and with a view to substantiate the
applicability of category 7(a), it would be extremely important to
rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Frick
1
India Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. . Their Lordships in
paragraph 8 have observed as under :-
“8. It is well-settled that the headings prefixed to sections or
entries cannot control the plain words of the provision; they
cannot also be referred to for the purpose of construing the
provision when the words used in the provision are clear and
unambiguous; nor can they be used for cutting down the plain
meaning of the words in the provision. Only, in the case of
ambiguity or doubt the heading or sub-heading may be
referred to as an aid in construing the provision but even in
such a case it could not be used for cutting down the wide
application of the clear words used in the provision. Sub-item
(3) so construed is wide in its application and all parts of
refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machines
whether they are covered or not covered under sub-items (1)
and (2) would be clearly covered under that sub-item.
Therefore, whether the manufacturer supplied the
refrigerating or air-conditioning appliances as a complete unit
or not is not relevant for the levy of duty on the parts specified
in sub-item (3) of Item 29A.”
1 (1990) 1 SCC 400
26
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
23. No doubt the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
in the context of levy of duty under the Central Excise Act. The
principle laid down in the context of ambiguity or doubt in the
heading or sub-heading whether could be used as an aid and
construing the provision is extremely significant. Applying the
principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though there is
no specific mention of Section 364A in category 7(a), the plain
words of the provision speak of “persons guilty of kidnapping for
ransom” and provides for 16 years of imprisonment inclusive of
remissions subject to minimum of 10 years of actual
imprisonment including set-off period. Thus, if category 7(a) of
th
Annexure-II of GR dated 15 March 2010 is applied, petitioner
No.1 becomes entitled to be released upon completion of 16 years
of imprisonment with remissions.
24. Let us consider the matter from another angle. Had the
petitioner been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC, at the highest, her case would have been covered
th
under category 1(b) of Annexure-I of GR dated 15 March 2010 as
it would have been “Murder with Premeditation”. Annexure-I to
th
the GR dated 15 March 2010 provides for a category in respect of
offences relating to crime by women. Category 1(b) provides the
27
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
categorisation of crime as “where the convict has committed the
murder with premeditation” the period of imprisonment to be
undergone including remissions subject to a minimum 14 years of
actual imprisonment including set-off period is 20 years.
25. The GR provides for a period of 20 years of
imprisonment with remission for the offence covered under
category 1(b). In the present case, petitioner No.1 is not convicted
for murder. Had there been conviction under Section 302,
petitioner No.1 would have got the benefit of provision contained
in category 1(b) and would have been released upon completion of
20 years of imprisonment with remissions. Factually the
petitioner No.1 has completed 20 years of actual imprisonment
th
and 26 years of imprisonment with remissions as on 30
September 2026. Thus, the categorisation under the GR cannot
be read in a manner where a woman convict for a more serious
offence is released upon completion of less number of years of
imprisonment than a woman convicted for a lesser offence.
26. We are inclined to hold that the categorisation of the
petitioner No.1 for release is not correct. In our humble opinion
the benefit of the GR must be granted in favour of the petitioner
No.1 if the conditions in the GR are fulfilled and having regard to
28
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
the facts of the present case where the petitioner No.1 has
completed 20 years of actual imprisonment and 26 years of
th
imprisonment with remissions as on 30 September 2026. Such
release is obviously subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the pending appeal filed by the State in which case the
categorisation can be revisited by the State depending upon the
final outcome of the pending appeal.
27. We are inclined to impose conditions while releasing the
petitioner No.1. In our opinion and as rightly submitted by the
learned APP, the object of premature release has to be borne in
mind. Considering life convict for premature release serves the
purpose of showing mercy to the prisoner and helping his
rehabilitation, if he demonstrates good conduct or in case of
change of conditions or special conditions. These are factors which
are borne in mind by the Government while considering the
premature release. Section 433 of CrPC confers power on the
Government to commute sentence without consent of the convict.
Section 433A of CrPC imposes restriction on the powers of
remission or commutation and mandates undergoing atleast 14
years’ imprisonment to be eligible for commutation. Section 435
of CrPC mandates State Government to act in consultation with
29
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
the Central Government in certain cases. In consonance with the
powers vested in it vide Section 433A of CrPC, various guidelines
were issued by the Government from time to time for
categorisation of the crime with corresponding total periods of
imprisonment, right from 1971 till date. These guidelines lay down
a broad division of the patterns of crimes for the purpose of
premature release of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Keeping the object of premature release in mind and in view of the
pending appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in our
considered opinion, it is necessary for us to impose conditions
while releasing the petitioner No.1.
28. We are not really satisfied with the manner in which
applications after applications are made by petitioner No.1. The
respondents were compelled to comment on the conduct of the
petitioners and their stand cannot be said to be unreasonable.
However, considering that the personal liberty of the petitioner
No.1 is involved, we refrain from making any observations.
Having formed an opinion that the petitioner can be released
prematurely in view of the GRs issued from time to time, all the
pending applications are disposed of without making any
observations.
30
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
29. We are inclined to impose the following conditions while
releasing the petitioner No.1.
O R D E R
nd
(i) The order dated 22 September 2025 passed by
the respondent categorising the petitioner is quashed and
set aside.
(ii) The respondent is directed to release the
petitioner No.1 upon executing personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties of the like
amount.
(iii) The petitioner No.1 shall provide her residential
address and contact details to the Superintendent,
Yerwada Central Prison, Pune where she intends to reside
after her release from prison.
(iv) Upon her release from prison, the petitioner
No.1 shall attend the police station nearest to the place of
her residence on the first Monday of every three months
between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. commencing November
2026 subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the pending appeal.
31
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
301.wp-4138-2013 & ors.doc
Bhogale
(v) The petitioner No.1 shall not leave India without
the prior permission of this Court.
(vi) It is made clear that this order is subject to the
decision of the order and directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the pending appeal.
(vii) Liberty of the State to revisit the issue of
categorisation is kept open after the decision of the
SLP/appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
30. The Interim Application (Stamp) No.23167 of 2025 is
disposed of.
31. The writ petition as well as all pending criminal
applications stand disposed of.
32. We really appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr.
Gawankar, learned Amicus Curiae in deciding this writ petition.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
32
Uploaded on - 17/10/2026 Downloaded on - 17/10/2026 17:15:10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)