Bombay High Court
MUNYA @ MUNIR GAUS SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The competent authority did not err in placing the petitioner under Category 4(d) of the guidelines.
Summary
The petitioner, Munya Shaikh, was convicted of murder and related offences and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed the classification of his offence under the Maharashtra prison guidelines, arguing that the murder arose from a family feud and should fall under Category 3(b) (22 years imprisonment) rather than Category 4(d) (24 years imprisonment). The court examined the trial and appellate records, noting that the murder was committed for reasons other than a family feud or prestige. Consequently, the court held that the Home Department correctly placed the petitioner in Category 4(d). No error in law or fact was found, and the petition challenging the categorisation was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the murder committed by the petitioner should be classified under Category 3(b) or Category 4(d) of the Maharashtra prison guidelines dated 15 March 2010.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 432
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307
Subjects
- murder
- family feud
- prison guidelines
- category 4(d)
- category 3(b)
- Section 432 CrPC
- life imprisonment
- appeal
Judgment
ssm 68-wp5900.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5900 OF 2025
Munya @ Munir Gaus Shaikh,
Age 33 years, Occu.- Labour,
R/at 611, Kasewadi, Bhavani Peth,
Pune, Maharashtra
(At present is in Yerwada Central Prison) …..Petitioner
Vs.
1) The State Of Maharashtra
(Through Superintendent of Jail,
Yerwada Jail, Pune)
2) The Secretary,
Home Department (Prison),
Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
3) Superintendent of Yerwada Jail,
Pune, Maharashtra …..Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. Shailesh Kharat a/w Adv. Vishwajeet Nimbalkar and Adv. Onkar
Chaudhari for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Chate APP, for the Respondent-State.
____________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2026.
JUDGMENT (Per A.S. Gadkari, J.):-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties,
1/4
ssm 68-wp5900.2025.doc
the Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2) Petitioner, (Original A-8) was convicted under Sections 147,
148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and is
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune, by Judgment and Order dated 20 th April, 2012 in Sessions
Case No.231 of 2009.
3) The Criminal Appeals preferred by the Petitioner and other
accused were dismissed by a common Judgment dated 6 th, 7th & 8th April,
2015 by our predecessors.
4) According to the submission of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, the Hon’ble the Supreme Court has not interfered with the said
Judgment dated 6th, 7th & 8th April, 2015 passed in the Petitioner’s Appeal.
5) In the aforesaid factual background, the Petitioner has
challenged the Order dated 13th June, 2025, whereby he has been placed in
category 4(d) of the Guidelines dated 15 th March, 2010 issued by the Home
Department, Government of Maharashtra, under Section 432 of the Cr.P.C.
6) Heard Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.
Chate, learned APP for the State. The entire record has been perused.
7) Mr. Kharat, submitted that, the genesis of the crime lies in a
feud between two families and that incident arose out of an assault by the
Petitioner and other co-accused on deceased Akram. According to him,
2/4
ssm 68-wp5900.2025.doc
since the offence was committed in the backdrop of a family feud, Category
No.3 (b) of the Guidelines dated 15 th March, 2010 would be applicable to
the Petitioner and not Category 4(d). He submits that under category 4(d),
the Petitioner would be required to undergo imprisonment of 24 years
including remissions, whereas under Category 3(b), the Petitioner will have
to undergo 22 years of imprisonment including remissions.
8) Category 3(b) and 4(d) of 15th March, 2010, guidelines read as
under:-
Category Sub- Categorisation of Crime Period of imprisonment to
No. Categ be undergone including
ory remissions subject to a
minimum of 14 years of
Actual Imprisonment
including Set-Off period.
3. Murder arising out of Land dispute,
family feuds, family prestige and
superstition.
a. ….
b. Crime committed as above with
premeditation, either individually or 22 years
by a gang.
4. Murder for other reasons
a. …….
b. …….
c. ……
d. Murders committed by more than 24 years
one person or group of persons
9) A perusal of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the
3/4
ssm 68-wp5900.2025.doc
Appeal Court clearly indicates that due to prior enmity arising from earlier
incidents between the family members of the deceased Akram and the
Petitioner along with the co-accused, the Petitioner and the co-accused
assaulted the deceased Akram with a blunt object on 16 th December, 2008
at about 10.15 p.m. and also caused injuries to another victim PW-1. The
judgments further indicate that the murder of Akram was committed by the
Petitioner along with the co-accused for reasons other than those arising
out of a family feud or family prestige.
10) In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the
competent Authority of the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra
has not committed any error in placing the Petitioner under Category 4(d)
of the Guidelines 15th March, 2010 by the impugned Order dated 13 th June,
2025. No error either in law or on facts has been committed by the
competent Authority while passing the impugned Order.
11) We find that, there are no merits in the Petition and is
accordingly dismissed.
11.1) Rule is discharged.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally signed
by SANJIV
SANJIV SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR
MASHALKAR Date: 2026.03.11
19:09:40 +0530
4/4
Checking your session…