HAKIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, petitioners has called in question tenability of the order dated 24.6.2003 communicated to him on 16.7.2003 by which his prayer for releasing him on probation under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 has been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the prayer of the petitioner has not been properly considered and only on the ground that the petitioner has committed a serious offence in a brutal manner, application has been rejected. It was submitted by Shri Sunil Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner that consideration of the manner of committing the offence alone cannot be the only reason for rejecting the application. Various other grounds like conduct of the petitioner while in prison, effect of his release on the society at large and various other aspects have to be considered. This having not been done learned counsel submitted that the order is unsustainable and there is prayerfor quashing the same and release of the petitioner. Refuting the aforesaid Shri Deepak Shri vastava, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the Board having considered the case of the petitioner in accordace with the requirement of law no case for interference in the matter is made out.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the recommodations of the Board as contained in Annexure P-3, it is seen that the Board has simply considered the manner in which the crime was committed and thereafter has refused to release the petitioner on probation. It is now settled that while considering the case for release on probation no single aspect is the deciding factor. The Board is required to consider the convict's antecedents preceding his entry into prison including antecedents prior to commission of crime, circumstances of the case, conduct of the applicant subsequent to the commission of crime and in prison and thereafter the effect of his release on probation and objection, if any, of the complainant are also to be given due weightage. After considering all these aspects final decision has to be taken, even though any one aspect of the matter may be sufficient to reject an application but consideration of all the aspects is tobe made. This having not been done in the present case, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Yadav v. Ramesh Kumar [2003(2) JLJ 97] it is thought appropriate that the matter be remitted back to the Board for fresh consideration in accordance with law laid down in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. Order Annexure P-1 is quashed and it is directed that the respondents shall refer the matter afresh to the Board and the Board shall reconsider the matter of the petitioner afresh in accordance with the observations made hereinabove and decide the same within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.