BALENDRASINGH SHIVMURTISINGH THAKURversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                      Gokhale                               1 of 4                  12-WP-2104-25


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2104 OF 2025

                     Balendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur                       ..Petitioner
                          Versus
                     The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                           ..Respondents

                                                 __________
                     Ms. Ankita Naik for Petitioner.
                     Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                 __________

                                         CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
                                                 RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

                                         DATE        : 8 SEPTEMBER 2026
                     PC :

                     1.           The   Petitioner    has   challenged   the    order    dated

                     05.06.2024 passed by the State of Maharashtra. Vide the

                     impugned order, the Petitioner was placed in the Category 6(c)

                     mentioned in the G.R. dated 15.03.2010. Accordingly, he is

                     required to complete 30 years of imprisonment with remission.


                     2.           Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

                     Petitioner’s case falls within the Category 4(e) which provides for

                     imprisonment of 26 years including the remission.

        Digitally
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2026.09.09
        11:26:07
        +0530
                                   2 of 4                   12-WP-2104-25


3.        Learned APP produced the copies of the trial Court’s

Judgment, as well as, the Judgment passed by this Court at

Aurangabad Bench in respect of the Petitioner’s conviction and

sentence. She submitted that the impugned order is correct and

the Petitioner’s case falls within the Category 6(c) of the said G.R.


4.        We have considered these submissions. The copies of the

operative parts of the aforementioned Judgments are taken on

record and marked ‘X’ for identification collectively. The Petitioner

was the original Accused No.6 in Sessions Case No.51 of 2008

before the Additional Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar. He was

convicted for the offence punishable U/s.396 of the IPC and was

sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.10000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one year. He was also

convicted for commission of the offences punishable under

sections 397, 452 r/w. 34 and 412 of the IPC, but for those

offences lesser sentence was awarded under different heads.

Significantly, he was separately convicted for commission of the

offence punishable U/s.396 r/w. 120B of the IPC and was

sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
                                  3 of 4                  12-WP-2104-25


Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for six months. Thus, he was

imposed two separate sentences for life imprisonment by the

impugned Judgment and order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the

learned Trial Judge. This Court at Aurangabad Bench confirmed

the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner. With the

result, he was sentenced to two separate sentences of life

imprisonment in this case.


5.        The G.R. dated 15.03.2010 No.RLP-1006/C.R.621/PRS-3

lays down different categories in Annexure-I and Annexure-II. The

Category 6(c) provides 30 years of imprisonment including set off

period and remission in case of convict awarded more than one life

imprisonment and the sentences running concurrently. The

Petitioner’s case squarely falls within that category. We are unable

to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the

Petitioner that his case falls within the Category 4(e) which lays

down the period of imprisonment as 26 years in case of murder

committed by dacoits in the act of committing dacoity. The

Category 6(c) is a special category where the convicts were

imposed more than one life imprisonment and the sentences
                                   4 of 4                 12-WP-2104-25


running concurrently.


6.        In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the

impugned order passed by the State of Maharashtra. We find no

merit in the petition. The Petition is dismissed.




(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)             (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)