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.

2. By way of this criminal writ petition, the petitioner, who is the original convicted accused no. 1 in Sessions Case No. 118 of 2010, is seeking quashment of the order dated 02.02.2026 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 3(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-4, Nanded, in Sessions Case No.118 of 2010 on 11.05.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against his conviction before this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.403 of 2012, which came to be dismissed on 08.09.2015. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment of 14 years and 2 months, and 22 years, 6 months and 29 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 3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010, and not under category 2(c), as the crime committed by the petitioner clearly arises out of a family feud/family dispute and does not involve “exceptional violence” as alleged by the respondents. Learned advocate submits that the facts and evidence on record, more particularly the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 118 of 2010, clearly establish that the incident was rooted in a long-standing family dispute. The crime was a direct outcome of a family feud, and hence the petitioner deserves to be categorized under Category 3(b). Learned advocate in support of his arguments relied on the judgment in the case of >State of Haryana> and Ors. Vs. Jagdish, [2010 AIR (SC) 1690] >and >Vinod >Bapurao Sontakke and another Vs. The State of >Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition >No.160 of 2024 dated 25.09.2024.

5. Per contra, learned APP supports the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452 read with Section 34 for causing the death of Laxmibai by assaulting her with a 'katti' and iron pipe, along with co- accused. According to him, considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the State Government has rightly placed the petitioner under Category 2(c) of the Guidelines of 2010. Learned APP further submits that the brutal manner of assault on multiple victims, including the complainant, her daughter and her mother, clearly falls within the ambit of “exceptional violence.”

6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. N. B. Patil for the respondent- State.

7. The only question before us is whether the petitioner should be placed under category 2(c) or category3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010 ?

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 3(b), which the learned advocate 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 :-

Category 3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010 :-

9. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge