Barati vs State of U.P.

D. K. Trivedi, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 551997 regarding rejection of premature release by which the petitioner''s premature release was rejected on the ground that the S.S.P. in his report pointed out that the petitioner is (sic) entitled for premature release because there is still an enmity between the parties in the village and any untoward incident could take place in the village.

The petitioner''s Form A was initially considered by the State Government vide order dated 2791995. On 2791995 the petitioner''s premature release was rejected by the State on the ground that the Superintendent of Police has opposed his pre mature release of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner''s FormA was rejected. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 115(HC)/96 and this Court vide order dated 1321997 directed the State to reconsider the matter and pass order in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Here, it may be pointed out that it is not disputed that the petitioner is eligible for consideration for premature release and the petitioner''s FormA was considered by the State Government and the same was rejected earlier on the same ground that the S.S.P. has opposed the premature release of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is not disputed that the Probation Officer after enquiry recommended for premature release of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was released earlier on leave as well as on parole but no untoward incident took place., It is also not disputed that the petitioner''s conduct in the jail was satisfactory. After considering all these aspects, this Court by order dated 1321997 directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner''s premature release but it appears that the State Government without even looking into the orders passed by this Court, rejected the FormA of the petitioner again on the ground that the S.S.P. has opposed the premature release of the petitioner. The report of the S.S.P. is not based on the materials, whereas, the Probation Officer after spot inspection and enquiry submitted his report. The Probation Officer after considering all these aspects sub milled a report recommending the petitioner''s premature release. If, the State Government is not agreeable with the report sub milled by the Probation Officer men, the Stale Government is bound to give reasons for on in the impugned order. The impugned order dated 55 1997 shows that the impugned order is passed only on the ground that the S.S.P. has opposed the premature release of the petitioner. This ground has already been quashed earlier also and the State Government was directed lo reconsider the mailer. The contention of the petitioner''s Counsel finds force with the tact that the State Government is not interested, in passing the order of premature release of the petitioner in spite of the fact that each and every agency has recommended for petitioner''s premature release and the petitioner is also entitled under law for premature release. The conduct of the State Government in rejecting the FormA of the petitioner on the same ground is, in our opinion, not proper. Ordinary, we do not direct for release of the petitioner but looking into the admitted fads that the petitioner is eligible for premature release and further after enquiry, the Probation Officer as well as the Board has recommended for pre mature release of the petitioner and the same is based on materials on the record. We direct the State Government lo release the petitioner forthwith after necessary formalities in accordance with law unless wanted in any other case.

With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.

Let the record placed by the Government Advocate be resumed to him.

Writ petition allowed.