##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-AUG:53191-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1193 OF 2026 Ashabai Puna Tayade (Convict)

Age: 56 years, Occ : Convict, R/o. Dada Saheb Rupvate Society, Ambedkar Nagar, Bhusawal, District Beed. .. PETITIONER VERSUS

1] State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Mumbai-400005.

2] Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Yerwada, Pune. .. RESPONDENTS …

Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.M.N.Ghanekar, APP for the respondent-State.

…

CORAM SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &

: VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

Reserved on : 19.10.2026 Pronounced on : 30.10.2026 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.

2. By way of this criminal writ petition, the petitioner, who is the original convicted accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2003, is seeking quashment of the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by respondent No.1 State, whereby she is placed under Category 2(C) of the Guidelines of 15.03.2010 and Category 1(d) of the Guidelines of 11.05.1992, prescribing 26 years period of imprisonment (including remissions) to be undergone for considering the proposal for premature release and consequently praying to place her under Category 1(B) of the Guidelines of 2010, prescribing 20 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, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No.165 of 2003 on 30.03.2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, "IPC") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against her conviction before this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2005, which came to be dismissed on 11.04.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 2008, which was also dismissed on 04.01.2013. The petitioner has undergone actual imprisonment of 15 years, 10 months and 03 days and, 22 years, 02 months and 25 days inclusive of all remissions till 30.09.2026.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed erroneously. The petitioner, being a woman, ought to have been placed under category 1(B) of the Guidelines of 2010, which creates a special category for women offenders.

Learned advocate submits that the petitioner has been wrongly classified under Category 2(C) of the 2010 Guidelines and Category 1(d) of the 1992 Guidelines. The said categorization is flawed as these categories are primarily based on the classification of offences, whereas Category 1(B) is a special category created on the basis of the gender of the offender. It is lastly submitted that since a specific and beneficial category exists for women, the petitioner, being a woman, is entitled to be considered under the same.

In support of his submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Jagdish, reported in 2010 AIR (SC) 1690, Usha Munna Upadhyay Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 3209 and Uday S/o Dhaku Sutar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4544 of 2021, dated

08.09.2022.

5. Per contra, learned APP supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner has been rightly placed under Category 2(C) of the Guidelines of 2010. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the special category created for offences relating to crime by women, but rather falls under the special category for crimes committed with exceptional violence, brutality, or where the death of the victim is caused by burns.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the facts of the