Shratrughan Jangluji Uikey v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai

(1) 13crwp892.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.892/2025 Shratrughan Jangluji Ukey .Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms S. P. Chavhan, Advocate for petitioner.

Mrs. N. Tripathi, A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

DATE :

JANUARY 5, 2026.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner is seeking direction for premature release in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010, wherein the respondent - State has categorized the offences to extend the benefit of premature release depending on the nature of crime. 3.

The petitioner's request of premature release is being entertained in terms of category 2(c), which relates to the offences against women and minor where the crime is committed with exceptional violence and/or with brutality of death of victim due to burns.

4.

Undisputedly, the offence under question has been committed against a woman. The petitioner has committed murder of one Vandana on account of her refusal to the proposal of petitioner for having relationship.

5.

Her refusal led to quarrel between the two. The petitioner slapped her and left the house. Later on, he came again, took out knife and stabbed her on back, shoulder and stomach. She suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the stab injuries. The judgment under question indicates that she suffered as many as eight injuries, four of which were incised wounds and one was a stab wound, which appears to be the reason for her death.

6.

The question before us is whether such an act would amount to an exceptional violence and/or brutality.

(2) 13crwp892.25 7.

In our considered view, it would not. The act appears to be out of anger because of refusal by the deceased to accept the petitioner's proposal of having relationship. The petitioner initially slapped her and later on came back with knife, which may indicate a degree of premeditation. 'Exceptional Violence', however, refers to acts of such severity that they produce a profound impact on society at large. Whereas, 'brutality' denotes conduct marked by excessive cruelty, typically involving elements such as torture and sustained abuse. These elements are absent in the present case. Moreover, the nature and extent of the injury do not reflect exceptional violence nor do they indicate brutality.

8.

That being so, the petitioner would fall in category "2(b)", which is termed as offence against women where crime is committed with premeditation. The minimum period of actual imprisonment for such crime is 14 years including set off period. The benefit to release could be then extended to the convict after 22 years. 9.

We are informed that the petitioner has not yet completed 22 years. The respondent shall accordingly extend benefit as and when the petitioner completes the stipulated period as mentioned in category 2(b) of Government Resolution dated 15.03.2010, if there is no other legal impediment.

10.

With the above directions, the writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

(JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale