RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this petition shall also govern disposal of W.P. No. 2228/2000 as in both these petitions, common issue is involved. The petitioner along with other petitioner (of W.P. No. 2228/2000) were tried for murder in S.T. No. 38/98 by Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur and eventually convicted for life by its judgment dated 16.9.1989. An appeal was taken to High Court by both the convicts (petitioners herein) but the same was dismissed. As a result, the petitioners are lodged in Central Jail Indore and are undergoing jail sentence since 16.9.1989.

(2.) BOTH the petitioners then invoked the provisions of M.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Act 1954 (for short Act). Though in 1996 the cases of petitioners were considered favourably and accordingly District Magistrate also recommended their release under the Act (as is clear from the recommendation at page of W.P. No. 2228/2000), yet no action seems to have taken by lapse of time. These petitioners then renewed their application for their release from jail as per section 2 of the Act. It appears from Annexure R -2 filed by the State that concerned Town Inspector recommended the case of petitioners for release but since S.P did not agree with the recommendation of Town Inspector and hence the State eventually essentially taking into account the recommendation of SP/Collector, rejected the application for their release on probation. It is against this rejection, these two convicts have filed this petition.

(3.) IN my opinion, the fact that the cases of both these convicts (petitioners) having been considered favourably in 1996 by District Magistrate and recommended for release and also coupled with the fact that Town Inspector of the concern area having probed into the matter and recommended for the release on conditions and also coupled with the fact that their conduct has been satisfactory in jail entitles them to be released on probation under the Act. Indeed when the case of petitioners was actually recommended for release in 1996 then unless the State is able to show that the petitioners had disqualified for being released after 1996 on account of their behaviour or any incident either outside or inside the Jail, there was no case for their rejection. It has not been the case of State that after 1996 the petitioners were released on probation and exploited their release to the detriment of public peace and law order. They, however, continued to languish in jail despite recommendation. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned rejection dated 25.5.1999 (Annexure R -2) is set aside. The State is directed to reconsider the case of petitioner in the light of aforesaid observation within a period of two months from the date of order and pass necessary consequential orders.