D.K. Trivedi and K.C. Bhargava, JJ. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner prays for pre-mature release under Section 2 of U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. The petitioner admittedly served out the sentence of about 18 years with remission and more than 14 years without remission.
(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner is eligible for release and therefore the petitioner prayed for the pre-mature release. After enquiry the Probation Board submitted a report that the petitioner has already served out a sentence of more than 18 years with remission and has also been released on parole eight times. The Board has also considered the report submitted by the District Magistrate as well as by the Superintendent of Police. In the report of District Magistrate it is mentioned that there is no dispute in the village. However, the District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police submitted the report against the petitioner. The Board after considering the report submitted by the District Magistrate as well as by the Superintendent of Police, came to the conclusion that the opposition of the District Magistrate as well as the Superintendent of Police is not based on proper facts and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the pre-mature release under the Act. The State Government rejected the Form 'A' stating that the petitioner is a Dabang Kism man and there is a terror in the village. It is also mentioned that there is an apprehension of some incident, if the petitioner is released from the jail.
(3.) This Court has already summoned the record and the same has been produced before us. We have perused the record and we find except in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police there is nothing on record to show that there is any terror or apprehension for any further incident. It is not disputed that the petitioner has already been released on parole on eight times and no untoward incident has taken place in between the applicant or any other person. Apart from this, the report submitted by the authorities itself shows that the conduct of the petitioner inside the jail or outside the jail was satisfactory and he had also served out the sentence of more than 18 years with remission The State Government passed the impugned order on the basis of the police report only without considering the report submitted by the Board. But in the police report also there is no material to show that the facts mentioned are correct. On the other hand there is a report of the Probation Board which says that the conduct of the petitioner is good and therefore, he can be released under Section 2 of the Probation Act. The State Government has not given any cogent reason for rejecting the report submitted by the Board and therefore, in our opinion the order dated 27-9-1995 passed by the State Government, rejecting the Form 'A' of the petitioner cannot be sustained.;