102.Cri.WP.694.2026 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 694 OF 2026 Shri Dattatray @ Bapya Anant Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Ms. K.R. Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. N.R. Tripathi, APP for the Respondents/State. ------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : 04.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner seeks challenge to the impugned order dated 05.09.2025 passed by respondent No.1, thereby categorising the petitioner under Clause 4(e) of the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010. 3. The petitioner is a convict undergoing life imprisonment. The said sentence was imposed by the learned Sessions Court, Thane, vide judgment dated 02.08.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.276 of 2010. The aforesaid judgment is at record page No.16 (Annexure-B). 4. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the petitioner was convicted for committing the murder of the deceased while committing robbery, as the deceased had resisted the said robbery. The judgment dated 02.08.2014 2026:BHC-NAG:11753-DB 102.Cri.WP.694.2026 2/3 passed by the learned Sessions Court was upheld by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2014 and connected matters vide judgment dated 07.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has erroneously categorised the petitioner under Clause 4(e) of the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010, which lays down the guidelines for premature release of convicts undergoing life imprisonment under the 14- year rule. The aforesaid guidelines are at record page No.57 (Annexure-D). 6. Perusal of the aforesaid guidelines clearly reveals that Clause 4(e) provides for categorisation of convicts who have committed murder while committing robbery. The said description squarely covers the case of the present petitioner. 7. As regards the contention of the petitioner that his case ought to have been classified under Clause 4(a), in our considered view, the said clause is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Clause 4(a) reads thus: “(a) Where a murder is committed without premeditation in an individual capacity and the person has no previous criminal history.” 8. The aforesaid clause applies to a case where the offence of murder is committed without premeditation. It does not cover a case where the murder is committed in the course of committing robbery. Neither of these circumstances is applicable to the case of the present petitioner. 102.Cri.WP.694.2026 3/3 9. The learned Sessions Court has specifically recorded a finding that the petitioner was committing robbery and, when the deceased resisted the robbery, the petitioner committed his murder. The said finding is upheld by this Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal. 10. In view of the above, we find no error or perversity in the impugned order dated 05.09.2025 passed by respondent No.1 categorising the petitioner under Clause 4(e) of the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/09/2026 11:28:13