Bombay High Court

BAPPASAHEB BHASKAR AWARE (C-5694)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: RULE ABSOLUTE

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner’s case falls under Category 2(b) of the 2010 Guidelines and not Category 2(c).

Summary

The petitioner, convicted of murder, dowry death and related offences under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 34 of the IPC, was placed by the State under Category 2(c) of the 2010 Guidelines, requiring 26 years of imprisonment for premature release. He challenged this categorisation, arguing that the crime involved premeditation but not "exceptional violence" or brutality, and should fall under Category 2(b) which mandates 22 years. The High Court examined the trial court findings, noting the murder was committed by strangulation and disposal of the body, but found no evidence of exceptional violence as defined in the Guidelines. Relying on precedent that ordinary murder does not constitute exceptional violence, the Court held that the facts fit Category 2(b). Consequently, the order placing the petitioner in Category 2(c) was quashed and he was directed to be re‑categorised under Category 2(b).

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s offence qualifies as ‘exceptional violence or brutality’ under Category 2(c) of the 2010 Guidelines
Whether the petitioner’s offence should be placed under Category 2(b) (premeditated crime against women/minor) instead of Category 2(c)
Whether the State’s order categorising the petitioner under Category 2(c) is legally sustainable

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 432
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 201, 302, 304-B, 34, 498-A

Subjects

premeditated murder
dowry death
prisoner release guidelines
Category 2(b)
Category 2(c)
exceptional violence
premeditation
criminal writ petition
life imprisonment
remission

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41948-DB

366.2026WP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2026

Bappasaheb S/o Bhaskar Aware (C-5694)
Age : 48 years, Occ : Convict,
At present confined in Open Jail
Visapur, Dist. Ahilyanagar
... PETITIONER
VERSUS

1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent of Jail,
Open Jail Visapur,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.

2. Secretary,
Home Department (Prison),
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. U.S. Bhosale, APP for Respondent/s - State
...

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 28th August, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON 9th September, 2026

JUDGMENT [Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.] :

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally with the consent of learned advocate for the

petitioner and the learned APP.

1
366.2026WP

2. By way of this criminal writ petition, the

petitioner, who is the original convicted accused no. 1 in

Sessions Case No. 44 of 2010, is seeking quashment of the

order dated 20.01.2026 passed by Respondent No.2- State,

whereby he is placed under Category 2(c) of the Guidelines

issued under Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010

(hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines of 2010"), prescribing

26 years period of imprisonment (including remissions) to

be undergone for considering the proposal for premature

release. It is also prayed to direct Respondent No.2 to place

him under Category 2(b) of the Guidelines of 2010,

prescribing 22 years period of imprisonment (including

remissions), and then, to direct Respondent No.1 to release

the petitioner forthwith.

3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 44

of 2010 on 04.07.2011 for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer

imprisonment for life. The petitioner and his father had

preferred an appeal against their conviction before this

Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2011. The

2
366.2026WP

Appeal came to be dismissed as against the petitioner, and

his father was acquitted on 28.02.2014. The petitioner has

undergone actual imprisonment of 14 years, 1 month and

16 days, and 23 years, 4 months and 19 days inclusive of

all remissions till 28.02.2026.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that

the impugned order is passed erroneously. It is submitted

that the petitioner ought to have been placed under

category 2(b) of the Guidelines of 2010, and not under

category 2(c), as the crime committed by the petitioner does

not involve “exceptional violence” or “brutality” as alleged

by the respondents.

Learned advocate further submits that though

the crime was committed with premeditation, there is

nothing on record to show that the same was committed

with exceptional violence or brutality, and hence, the

petitioner deserves to be categorised under Category 2(b) of

the Guidelines of 2010, which specifically deals with

offences relating to crime against women and minors

committed with premeditation.

Learned advocate in support of his arguments

relied on the judgment in the case of Sopan S/o

3
366.2026WP

Bhausaheb Gunjal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1128 of 2022

dated 12.04.2023, Aslam s/o Jamadar Ansari Vs. State

of Maharashtra and Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition

No.837 of 2024 dated 01.07.2024 and Ganesh @

Deepak S/o Shahji Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No.917 of 2025 dated

18.09.2025.

5. Per contra, learned APP supports the impugned

order and submits that the State Government has rightly

placed the petitioner under Category 2(c) of the Guidelines

of 2010. Learned APP drew our attention to the judgment of

the trial Court, which specifically observed that the

petitioner committed “brutal murder and dowry death”.

Considering the nature of the offence, which involves

strangulation and tampering of evidence by throwing the

dead body in a well, the case squarely falls under Category

2(c).

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal for

the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. U.S. Bhosale for the

4
366.2026WP

respondent- State. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions and perused the papers.

7. The sentencing Court, the Advisory Board and

the Inspector General of Prisons have all concurred that the

petitioner's case falls under Category 2(c) due to

exceptional brutality involved in commission of the offence.

8. For ready reference, we have reproduced

category 2(c) of the Guidelines of 2010, wherein the

petitioner is placed by order dated 02.02.2026, as well as

Category 2(b), which the learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon in support of the claim for premature

release which read thus :

Category 2(c) of the Guidelines of 2010 :-

Period of Imprisonment to be undergone
Category including remission subject to a
Sub category Categorisation of Crimes
No. minimum of 14 years of actual
imprisonment including set off period.
OFFENCES RELATING TO CRIME
2
AGAINST WOMEN AND MINOR
Where the crime is committed with
Exceptional violence and or with
c 26 years
brutality or death victim due to
burns.

5
366.2026WP

Category 2(b) of the Guidelines of 2010 :-

Period of Imprisonment to be undergone
Category including remission subject to a
Sub category Categorisation of Crimes
No. minimum of 14 years of actual
imprisonment including set off period.
OFFENCES RELATING TO CRIME
2
AGAINST WOMEN AND MINOR
Where the crime as mentioned
b above is committed with 22 years
premeditation

9. We have gone through the judgment of the trial

Court, whereby the petitioner was convicted. The facts and

evidence on record clearly establish that the incident

between the petitioner and the deceased arose out of

demand for dowry. The marriage between the petitioner

and deceased Sangita was solemnized on 12.06.2009. After

one month of marriage, the father of deceased Sangita

PW-2 - Dashrath visited the deceased's matrimonial house,

where the petitioner expressed displeasure over the

marriage arrangements and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-. The

deceased was assaulted by the petitioner and his family

members in presence of her father PW-2. During Diwali,

2009 and one month subsequent to that, PW-2 Dashrath

visited the petitioner/accused again and requested them to

treat the deceased properly, but the accused did not agree.

6
366.2026WP

On 22.12.2009, a telephonic message was

received that the deceased was missing. After extensive

search, on 24.12.2009, the dead body of the deceased was

found floating in a well. In the postmortem report, the

cause of death was mentioned as "cardio respiratory arrest

due to asphyxia due to strangulation". The postmortem

report also shows that there were two faint ligature marks

below the hyoid bone. In the inquest panchanama it is

observed that round mark around the neck of deceased

Sangita was found, which is ligature mark as per evidence

of the doctor. The trial Court has observed that the

petitioner and his father strangulated deceased Sangita and

made a farce of her search by giving false message to PW-2

that the deceased was missing, as the postmortem note

shows that the death of Sangita had occurred before 36

hours to less than 72 hours and the accused have

suppressed the fact of homicidal death of the deceased and

threw her body in a well. It has also come in the evidence of

PW-2, father of the deceased, Sangita knew swimming and

the accused has also admitted that she used to swim in the

river.

7
366.2026WP

It is a fact that the death of Sangita has

occurred within one year of marriage, there is evidence

regarding demand of dowry, death has occurred due to

strangulation and the body was further thrown in a well. In

our considered opinion, these circumstances would not

constitute exceptional violence and murder with brutality

to fall under Category 2(c), though the learned APP has

pointed out that the trial Court has specifically observed

that the petitioner has committed “brutal murder and

dowry death of the deceased”.

10. Here it will be apposite to refer to the

observations made in the case of Rajaram Patil Vs. State

of Maharashtra, 1997 (99) Bom. L.R. 98, which read

thus :-

“4. Every murder is a result of some kind of violence. Use of
weapon or blows on the vital part by itself cannot be termed
to be an exceptional violence. Such a violence would be
ordinary violence for committing murder. It appears that the
State Government wanted to create a separate category of
murders in which there is an exceptional violence or which
show that the perversity of mind. In a peace loving society,
every murder is bound to shock the members of the society
but the exceptional violence creates tremors of shock and
indignation. We do not wish to give examples which amount
to exceptional violence but suffice it to say that, the present
case is not one which can be labelled as a case of
exceptional violence. Though every offence of murder is
creation of an ill-mind, perversity is something more than
that. Perverse individuals may act in a fashion in committing

8
366.2026WP

the murder as would show that depravity of balance of
mind. We do not see anything in the acts committed by the
present petitioner which show any perversity in his mind.
The question as to whether there is an exceptional violence
or there is perversity in a particular case will have to be
decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that
case and no yardstick of universal application can be
available for this purpose.”

11. In the light of the above, we are of the

considered opinion that the view expressed by the Presiding

Judge of the Trial Court under Section 432 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Advisory Board and the Inspector

General of Prisons namely, that the petitioner's case falls

under category 2(c) which deals with "offences relating to

crime against women and minor committed with

exceptional violence and or with brutality or death of victim

due to burns", is not factually tenable, but rather the

petitioner's case falls under category 2(b), which deals with

"offences relating to crime against women and minor where

the crime as mentioned above is committed with

premeditation". The facts of the case show that it was a

murder with premeditation for the reason that the demand

of dowry is proved and before one month of the incident,

the deceased was driven out of the matrimonial house for

bringing the amount of dowry. Hence, looking at the facts

of the case, the petitioner's case falls under Category 2(b).
9
366.2026WP

12. The petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgment in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.

Jagdish, 2010 AIR (SC) 1690, wherein it is held that the

policy/category beneficial to the prisoner has to be adopted

and liberal interpretation should be given. Therefore, the

case of the petitioner would fall in Category 2(b), which

provides for 22 years of imprisonment to be undergone

including remission and not in 2(c) which provides for 26

years of imprisonment to be undergone including

remission.

13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned

order is not sustainable. Hence, we proceed to pass the

following order :-

ORDER

(i) The petition stands allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed by

respondent no.1, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The respondents are directed to place the petitioner

under category 2(b) of the Guidelines issued under

Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010.

10
366.2026WP

(iv) Necessary order to that effect shall be passed within

15 days from the date of this order.

(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the

petition is disposed of accordingly.

[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE

sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…