PRABHAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus for quashing the order, Annexure P-1 by which his case for release on probation has been rejected by the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that he was convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 302/149, IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment on 11-8-1997 in Sessions Trial No. 46/86 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. In all, there were live accused persons in the said case. One of the accused. Rad-heykishan son of Gopal has been acquitted by the Supreme Court in appeal and the appeal of four accused had been dismissed. After serving the sentence for five years, they moved an application under Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules"), One of the accused, Feran Singh has been released on probation vide Annexure P-2 but in the case of petitioner and two other accused, the prayer has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 19-9-2001, Annexure P-1.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that when Feran Singh was released on probation, his case also required similar consideration. There was nothing different in the case of petitioner and the said Feran Singh. Accordingly, it is submitted that the law of equality has been violated and the discrimination amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further averred by the petitioner that his case was processed as per the provisions of Rule 6 (2) and (3) of the Rules. The Superintendent of Jail, District Magistrate and Probation Officer have recommended the case of petitioner's release on probation. Non-official member of the Board had also recommended the case of the petitioner even then the case of the petitioner has not been considered properly and it has been rejected.

(3.) HEAVY reliance has been placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ganga Charan v. State of M. P. and Ors. , 1994 JLJ 795 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M. P. and Anr. v. Anil, 2001 (3) M. P. H. T. 30, as well as a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579. Apart from this a series of unreported judgments have been brought to my notice and on the basis of the aforesaid, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Gupta that the requirements of the rules have not been complied with.