The Bombay High Court has clarified a crucial principle in premature release jurisprudence: when a convict's case fits multiple categories under the state's sentencing guidelines, the more beneficial category must be applied. This judgment underscores the state's obligation to construe remission policies liberally in favour of convicts, aligning with Supreme Court precedents on the subject.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shoheb @ Sayyad Usman Sayyad, was convicted in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2010 on 28.03.2013 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2013, was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 12.12.2019. As of 30.04.2026, he had undergone 14 years, 2 months, and 21 days of actual imprisonment, and 22 years and 3 days inclusive of remissions.
The dispute arose when the State of Maharashtra, by order dated 02.02.2026, placed the petitioner under category 4(d) of the Guidelines issued under Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010 (hereinafter, Guidelines of 2010). This category prescribed a 24-year imprisonment period (including remissions) for considering premature release. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that his case fell under category 3(b), which prescribed a 22-year period and was thus more beneficial.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted for the murder of one Ayyub, committed pursuant to a conspiracy with co-accused.
- The incident arose from a family feud/family dispute, as evidenced by the statement of PW-5 Mujjaffar (brother of the deceased).
- The petitioner's case could be classified under both category 3(b) (murder arising from family feuds with premeditation) and category 4(d) (murder committed by more than one person).
- The petitioner had exhausted 22 years and 3 days of imprisonment (including remissions) by 30.04.2026, meeting the threshold for category 3(b) but not category 4(d).
Procedural History
- 28.03.2013: Conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shrirampur, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2010.
- 12.12.2019: Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2013 dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
- 02.02.2026: State Government passed an order placing the petitioner under category 4(d) of the Guidelines of 2010.
- Filed: Present Criminal Writ Petition No. 519 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashment of the State Government's order dated 02.02.2026 placing him under category 4(d).
- Direction to the State to place him under category 3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010.
- Immediate release from prison, as he had already undergone the requisite period under category 3(b).
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was: When a convict's case fits multiple categories under the same set of premature release guidelines, which category should apply? Specifically, should the State apply the stricter category (4(d)) prescribing a longer imprisonment period, or the more beneficial category (3(b)) prescribing a shorter period?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner's case fell under category 3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010, as the murder arose from a family feud, an admitted fact.
- The statement of PW-5 Mujjaffar clearly established the existence of a family dispute, bringing the case within the ambit of category 3(b).
- Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jagdish (2010 AIR (SC) 1690), the petitioner argued that the benefit of a liberal policy must be extended to convicts.
- The petitioner also cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in Uday S/o Dhaku Sutar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 4544 of 2021), which held that if a case falls under multiple categories, the more beneficial category must apply.
For the Respondent
- The State supported the impugned order, arguing that the petitioner was rightly placed under category 4(d).
- The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B for causing death by firing shots from a revolver and pistol, pursuant to a conspiracy with co-accused.
- Given the nature of the offence and the manner of its commission, the State contended that category 4(d) was appropriate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the Guidelines of 2010 and the specific categories under dispute. Category 3(b) covered murder arising from land disputes, family feuds, family prestige, or superstition with premeditation, prescribing a 22-year imprisonment period. Category 4(d), on the other hand, covered murders committed by more than one person or group of persons, prescribing a 24-year period.
The Court noted that the petitioner's case fell under both categories. While the murder was committed pursuant to a conspiracy (category 4(d)), it also arose from a family feud (category 3(b)).
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagdish and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Uday. In Jagdish, the Supreme Court held that the State must exercise its power of remission liberally in favour of a convict, particularly when a beneficial policy exists at the time of consideration. The Court quoted:
"The State has to exercise its power of remission also keeping in view any such benefit to be construed liberally in favour of a convict which may depend upon case to case and for that purpose, in our opinion, it should relate to a policy which, in the instant case, was in favour of the respondent. In case a liberal policy prevails on the date of consideration of the case of a 'lifer' for pre-mature release, he should be given benefit thereof."
In Uday, the Bombay High Court extended this principle to situations where a convict's case falls under multiple categories within the same guidelines. The Court held that the more beneficial category must be applied, stating:
"The said principle of giving benefit to the convict of beneficial policy certainly applies to the two different policies/guidelines but the same will also apply to the categories in the same policy/guidelines, if case falls under both the categories."
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of category 3(b), as it was more favourable than category 4(d).
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court:
- Quashed and set aside the State Government's order dated 02.02.2026 placing the petitioner under category 4(d).
- Directed the respondents to place the petitioner under category 3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010.
- Ordered the respondents to pass the necessary order within 8 days from the date of the judgment.
- Disposed of the petition with the rule made absolute in the above terms.
What This Means For Similar Cases
The Beneficial Category Must Prevail
This judgment establishes a clear legal principle: when a convict's case fits multiple categories under the same set of premature release guidelines, the more beneficial category must be applied. Practitioners should:
- Scrutinize the guidelines to identify all applicable categories.
- Argue for the most favourable category, even if the State has placed the convict under a stricter one.
- Rely on Jagdish and Uday to support claims for liberal construction of remission policies.
State's Discretion Must Be Exercised Fairly
The judgment reinforces that the State's power of remission is not absolute and must be exercised in favour of the convict when multiple categories apply. Key takeaways:
- The State cannot arbitrarily choose a stricter category if a more beneficial one fits the facts.
- Judicial review is available to challenge such orders, as demonstrated in this case.
- Evidence of motive (e.g., family feud, land dispute) can be crucial in determining the applicable category.
Implications for Prisoners and Advocates
- Prisoners serving life sentences should review their cases to check if they fit multiple categories under the guidelines.
- Advocates should proactively argue for the application of the most beneficial category, especially in cases involving family disputes, land disputes, or other mitigating circumstances.
- Trial courts and appellate courts should record findings on motive, as these can significantly impact premature release considerations.
