CHETA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was convicted for life on 21-2-1979 has come up before this Court second time for his release on licence under the provisions of U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. Earlier the petitioner filed writ petition bearing No.258 (HC) of 1994. On 25-7- 1995, the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court wherein the Government was directed to consider as to whether the opinion of S.P. and D.M. was based on some material or not; because the Court felt that it was necessary to give specific reasons for not agreeing with the report of the Probation Board, which was in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on 20-3-1996 wherein the same stand was taken by the State which was taken earlier in the writ petition. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for his release or licence was reconsidered by the State Government. The release of the petitioner on licence was rejected on the ground that the petitioner after his release may take revenge from the witnesses who deposed against him. It was further stated that nothing can be said about the security of the petitioner. There is no possibility that the petitioner would lead a peaceful life after his release.

(3.) No material in support of the said allegations has been placed before this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor produced the relevant file, wherein the District Magistrate agreed with the report of the Superintendent of Police to the extent that the petitioner will not be able to lead a peaceful life. The file also discloses the report of the Probation Board according to which till 13-9-1995 petitioner had completed more than seventeen years detention in jail with out remission and also underwent more-than twenty three years detention with remission. His conduct in the jail while undergoing sentence was upto mark. The report further indicated that the District Magistrate has reported that the person appointed as guardian was suitable as the terror or fear stricken on the other side, will try to wreak vengeance against the petitioner and may commit any offence.