-1- 11.Cri.WP.795.2026.J.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 795 OF 2026 PETITIONER : Dhanraj S/o. Dagdu Chavhan, [Convict Prisoner], Aged about Major years, Presently lodged at Morshi Open Jail, Dist. Amravati. //VERSUS// RESPONDENTS : 1. The Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons, Amravati, Maharashtra. 2. The Jail Superintendent, Morshi Open Jail, Dist. Amravati. __________________________________________________________ Mr. Vinay V. Sharma, Advocate (Appointed) for the Petitioner. Ms. N.R. Tripathi, APP for the Respondents/State. __________________________________________________________ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 13 th OCTOBER , 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for two months, in Sessions Case No. -2- 11.Cri.WP.795.2026.J.odt 44 of 2016, by judgment dated 06.02.2020. The petitioner applied for remission in terms of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017. The respondents obtained the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, who opined that, considering the serious nature of the offence, the petitioner should not be extended the benefit of remission. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the six categories excluded from the applicability of the aforesaid Government Resolution. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 579 of 2023 and the decision in Satish Dada Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 1125. He submitted that, in the latter decision, this Court considered the aforesaid Government Resolution. The Division Bench also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 394, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the exercise of the power of remission cannot be arbitrary and that the decision to grant remission must be well-informed, reasonable, and fair to all concerned. In view of the above, he prayed that the petitioner be extended the benefit of remission. 4. Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and contended that, considering the serious nature of the offence and the applicability of the aforesaid Government Resolution, the authority had rightly rejected the petitioner’s prayer for remission. -3- 11.Cri.WP.795.2026.J.odt 5. After hearing both sides and perusing the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017, which was issued on the occasion of the 125th birth anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, we note that the said Resolution provides for remission of three months to prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for more than five years, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. However, the Government Resolution carves out six categories of prisoners who are excluded from its applicability. 6. This aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Satish Dada Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein it was observed as under: “By exercising the rule-making powers under sub-section (5) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, the State has framed rules known as the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 (for short “the Remission Rules”). Rule 4 of the Remission Rules provides for four categories of remissions. Fourth category is of the State remissions which is provided under Rule 18 which reads thus: “18. The State Government may, on such occasions of national importance or public rejoicing as the State Government may determine grant remission to such prisoners for such number of days as the State Government may by order specify in this behalf.” 7. Thus, the power to grant remission under sub-section (1) of Section 432 of Cr.P.C. for giving effect to the said power, now there are statutory rules in the form of the Remissions Rules. It is true that no prisoner can seek remission as a matter of right. However, if a statute or statutory Rule or a Policy of the State Government provides for grant of remission in terms thereof a prisoner is entitled to be considered for grant of remission. -4- 11.Cri.WP.795.2026.J.odt 8. In the present case, the authority has not considered whether the petitioner’s case falls within any of the six categories excluded under the aforesaid Government Resolution. We, therefore, find that this is a fit case for directing respondent No. 1 to reconsider the petitioner’s claim. We also note that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while furnishing his opinion, did not advert to the aforesaid Government Resolution and merely observed that the offence was of a serious nature. 9. In view of the above, we relegate the matter back to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for remission in the light of the Government Resolution dated 03.06.2017 and the observations made hereinabove. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per the Rules. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2026 21:32:05