JASKARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no dispute that after having been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/307 of IPC by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareili on 31-5-1978, the petitioner is serving sentence of life imprisonment and by now he has, according to the response filed by the State, put in Jail more than 14 years without remission and 19 years, 6 months and 10 days with remission as in October, 2003. THERE is further no dispute that his case for release on licence, under the provision of Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, was considered in the light of Jail reports, report of the District Probation Officer and report of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, but the Government rejected his Form-A, vide order dated 29-8-2001/2-8-2001, mainly on the ground that District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police opposed his release on licence. Now the petitioner has come to this Court with prayers for directing the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to produce the petitioner before this Court and to direct his release from Jail, to quash the rejection of Form-A and to direct the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to reconsider his release on licence under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) IT has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has maintained a good conduct in Jail, that he was earlier released on 6 occasions, each for period of 15 days and there was no complaint that he misused that liberty, that the complainant's side has left the village after disposing of the property and there is no likelihood of happening of any occurrence, as sequel to the murder, for which he has been sentenced. In counter-affidavit filed by the State, it has not been disputed that the complainant's side has left the village in question, after disposing of the entire property. There is further no denial of the averments made in para 19 of the writ petition, to the effect that the petitioner was earlier released on six occasions for a period of 15 days each and there was no complaint that he every misused that liberty.

(3.) SRI Janardan Singh, the learned Counsel for the State has tried his best to support the decision of the Government by arguing that the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate were clearly opposed to the release of the petitioner on licence as they apprehended that his release might give rise to any other incident. It has also been argued by SRI Singh that view of Superintendent of Police was based on a report obtained by him from the local police and it cannot be said that the same was based on no material.