Mumbai, Oct. 19 -- Two decades after an orthopedic surgeon from Pune was murdered for ransom and his body dismembered, Deepti Devasthali, a former student of medicine, who was convicted for abducting the man with her mother Leena, a lawyer, is set to walk out of the women's jail at the Yerwada central prison. The Bombay High Court on Friday set aside an order of the state government that had categorised Deepti among life convicts required to serve 30 years in prison to qualify for premature release. The court said that Deepti, who had served 20 years in prison as on September 30, was not convicted for murder and hence her categorisation, requiring longer incarceration, was "not correct". Justices MS Karnik and Sandesh Patil ordered her release from prison but restricted her from leaving the country and asked her to report to a police station once in three months, as petitions in the case were still pending in the Supreme Court. The crime dates back to July 2006 when the Devasthali mother-daughter duo were accused of kidnapping Dr Deepak Mahajan for ransom, committing his murder, hacking his body into pieces and disposing of them near Katraj. The duo was allegedly disguised like Jassi, a popular television character at the time of committing the offence. In December 2007, a sessions court in Pune had held them guilty and sentenced them to death. In 2009, however, the Bombay High Court set aside their death sentence, acquitted them of the murder charge but held them guilty for kidnapping for ransom, criminal conspiracy, cheating by impersonation and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The duo subsequently challenged their conviction in the Supreme Court while the state government too challenged their acquittal of the murder charge. The petitions remain pending before the apex court. Leena Devasthali, the court noted, was released from prison in May 2025 after completing 14 years of imprisonment and attaining the age of 60. On September 22, 2025 the state government, relying on two government resolutions of 1992 and 2010 respectively, placed Deepti in a category of life convicts that required her to spend 30 years in prison with remissions. Jail inmates are granted remissions by prison authorities for good behavior or participation in institutional work, which add to the number of their days served in prison, enabling them to qualify for early release. The court was told that while Deepti had spent 20 years in prison, with remissions it amounted to 26 years. The court had appointed an experienced lawyer as amicus curiae (friend of the court) who said that Deepti could not have been placed in the category requiring 30 years imprisonment as she was not held guilty of murder. The state government, however, told the court that as jail inmates, both Deepti and Leena were cantankerous and notorious for flouting prison rules. Soon after her release from prison, Leena had filed "applications making myriad frivolous, vexatious and baseless allegations, not only against the prison authorities; but also against the judiciary", the government stated. The state government told the court that "pre-release of a convict is not a matter of right; but an empathetic approach adopted upon request." It argued that Deepti's categorisation was "absolutely apt and justified, considering the nature of offence, gravity of offence and opinions of the various authorities" including the prison advisory board and the additional director general of police and inspector general of prisons. "No doubt the allegation made against the petitioners is very serious," the judges said. They, however, noted that under the GR of 2010, a woman convicted for murder with premeditation had to serve at least 14 years of imprisonment and would be eligible for early release on completing 20 years with remissions. Deepti was not convicted for murder and hence, the court said, the categorisation under the GR cannot be such that a woman convicted for a more serious offence, like murder, is released after serving fewer years in jail than a woman convicted for a lesser offence. The judges also said, "We are not really satisfied with the manner in which applications after applications are made by petitioner no.1 (Deepti)" and added that the state government was not unreasonable in commenting on the conduct of the Devasthalis. "However, considering that the personal liberty of the petitioner no.1 (Deepti) is involved, we refrain from making any observations," the judges said....