Nami vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition the petitioner prays for premature release under the provisions of U.P. Prisoners'' Release on Probation Act, 1938. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, under Section 302, I.P.C. on 26^41977 and was sentenced imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 1977. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also rejected by the Hon''ble High Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner has already served out sentence of more than 16 years with remission. And he is entitled to be considered for premature release under the Act. The petitioner, therefore, furnished FormA for premature release. The Probation Officers, District Magistrate as well as Sr. Superintendent of Police submitted a report to the Probation Board for premature release of the petitioner and the matter was placed before the State Government but the State Government rejected the FormA of the petitioner for premature release on the ground that District Magistrate has stated that, if, petitioner is released then there is every likelihood of repetition of crime and further is released then there is every likelihood of repetition of crime and further there is still likelihood of the terror in the village. The petitioner''s counsel pointed put that the State without applying its mind rejected the FormA on flimsy grounds. He pointed out that the District Magistrate in fact has recommended the premature release of the petitioner but the State wrongly made observation in the order that the District Magistrate has opposed the release. FormA is on record. The District Magistrate in para 4 mentioned the following facts:

The above mentioned facts itself shows that the District Magistrate has said �Han� in reply to the fact that looking into the conduct of the petitioner in jail as well as outside, it is possible that he will not repeat his offence. Thereafter as regards the second part of the report as to whether there is likelihood of living peacefully, the reply of the District1 Magistrate is �Sambhawana Hai�. The abovementioned facts itself shows that District Magistrate also recommended the premature release but the State has wrongly interpreted the report submitted by the District Magistrate while rejecting the FormA of the petitioner. The Board after considering all the aspect of the case including the conduct of the petitioner inside the jail as well as outside the jail recommended the premature release of the petitioner. In these circumstances, if, the State is not agreeing with the report submitted by the Probation Board then duty is cast on the State to furnish reasons in the order specially when this Court while deciding the Writ Petition No. 383 of 1996(HC) directed the State to dispose or the petitioner''s FormA by speaking order. No doubt all the reports are in favour of the petitioner but we again quash the order dated 21 61997 and direct the State to reconsider the FormA and pass speaking orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of State, dated 2161997 is quashed.

Writ petition allowed.