Santosh Mohan Rajput v. State Of Maharashtra

KSG 4-WP-4341-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4341 OF 2024 Santosh Mohan Rajput ... Petitioner V/s.

State of Maharashtra ... Respondent _______________________________________ None for the Petitioner.

Ms. P.P. Shinde A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

_______________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 25th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C. :

1) Learned APP submitted that, in Order dated 28th January, 2026, the figure 22 years has been erroneously typed instead of 24 years. The correct number of years is 24 years.

2) The Order dated 28th January, 2026, be corrected accordingly Digitally signed by KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE Date:

2026.03.04 20:03:49 +0530 KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE and a corrected copy of Order be uploaded on the official website of High Court of Bombay.

3) Mr. Yogesh Desai, Special Inspector General of Prison & Correctional Services, Maharashtra State, Pune & I/c. Dy. Inspector General of Prisons, Southern Region, Mumbai has filed an detailed Affidavit dated 24th February, 2026. It is stated therein that, as per the Orders passed by the 1/2

KSG 4-WP-4341-2024.doc State Government, the Petitioner has been placed in category 4(d) of 2010 Guidelines. The Petitioner therefore will have to undergo 24 years of imprisonment including remissions. It is stated that, the Petitioner's brother namely Jitu Mohan Rajput has been released from Jail on 29th February, 2020, after completion of sentence. That, the Petitioner when was released on furlough leave had absconded and was arrested by Naupada Police Station, Thane and thereafter lodged to the prison. The period of abscontion was 663 days and therefore the name of the Petitioner was removed from the remission register. The name of the Petitioner was thereafter taken back to the remission register in the year 2019.

4) Learned APP submitted that, after the Petitioner undergoes the entire sentence he will be released in due course of time. As the Petitioner was absconding in the interregnum, he cannot claim parity with his coaccused namely Jitu Mohan Rajput. 5) In view of the above, we find that there are no merits in the Petition and is accordingly disposed off.

( SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) 2/2