ARVIND YADAV Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) By the impugned common judgment, the High Court allowed number of Letter Patent Appeals and directed the authorities to release all the appellants, who were before the Division Bench, from prison within a period of 15 days. In criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3759/02, the judgment of the High Court directing release of Ramesh Kumar who was found guilty of offence under Section 302, IPC for murder of deceased Jitendra, has been challenged by his brother-Arvind Yadav on permission granted to him to file the Special Leave Petition. The State has also filed appeal challenging the direction of the High Court for release of Ramesh Kumar (Crl. A. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4397/02). The directions of High Court to release other convicts are subject matter of challenge in connected appeals.

(3.) The crime was committed in the year 1994. The Sessions Court, by judgment and order dated 26th August, 1997, convicted Ramesh Kumar for offence under Section 302, IPC. The appeal filed by Ramesh Kumar challenging his conviction is pending before the High Court. Release from prison has been sought by Ramesh Kumar under Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder. Under the Act, release on licence is not for a limited period and is for entire duration of the sentence or until the licence to release is revoked. The Probation Board under the Act and the Rules did not recommend the release of the convict. The orders of the Probation Board dated 10th April, 2001 and affirmed by the State Government on 25th April, 2001 were challenged by the convict in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4532/01. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge holding that the board had taken note of factual scenario and had observed that the convict along with others had preplanned murder of the deceased and committed the murder in post cruel manner by lethal weapons and that the manner in which the murder is committed comes within the realm of antecedents". It was held that the order passed by the Probation Board was just and proper and did not call for interference and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.