Gore Lal vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the communication dated 6-7-2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioner has been informed that vide order dated 16-6-2009 (Annexure R-3) the application of the petitioner for his release from prison on probation under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (for short ''the Rules, 1964''), was rejected. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code for commission of murder of one Paras Ram and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The petitioner, after having completed 12 years of imprisonment, made an application for release on probation under the provisions of Rules, 1964. The State Government, by order dated 6-7-2009 (Annexure P-5) informed the Director General (Jail) that the case of the petitioner alongwith 10 other persons were considered and looking from all angles, it was not found suitable for release of the petitioner on probation under the provisions of the Rules, 1964.

Contention of Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the application of a prisoner can be rejected only on the ground that if the District Magistrate after consulting the authorities, is of the opinion that the prisoner is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if released from prison. No such opinion has been set out in the recommendation dated 6-7-2009 and as such, the impugned order is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Rules, 1964. Further, it is stated that the report of the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Korba has not been received by the petitioner, though the Additional District Magistrate, Korba, on the basis of report of the Superintendent of Police, Korba, observed that the petitioner''s case has not been recommended for release from prison. According to the petitioner, the report dated 8-4-2008 (Annexure R-1) of the Superintendent of Police, Korba, is not proper as no reasons for not recommending the case of the petitioner for his release has been stated.

On receipt of the recommendation and on consideration of other grounds, the State Probation Board comprising of Principal Secretary, Home, Jail Department, Director General of Police, and one non-Governmental member, came to the conclusion that after having considered the case from all angles, the case of the petitioner was not a fit case for recommending his release on probation under the provisions of the Act, 1964.

Be that as it may, the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the expression of opinion to the effect that the petitioner is likely to abstain from crime, if released from prison, is the only criteria for considering the case for release on probation, is not sustainable, as the Board has to consider the case of the prisoner from all angles. It is a clear case where the petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment and for want of mentioning the reason as aforestated by the Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be held as illegal or irregular. The petitioner cannot claim as matter of right to release him on probation under the provisions of Rules, 1964, as this is a Legislation not a facility to a prisoner to be released on probation. Having regard to the several factors including conduct of the petitioner and nature of offence and other relevant factors, which are germane to release the petitioner on probation under the provisions of Rules, 1964.

Thus, I unhesitatingly hold that no interference is warranted with the impugned order. The petitioner may approach the authorities again under the provisions of law for his release from prison, on probation.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.