- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the convict for pre-mature release on the basis of Form-A under Section 2 of U. P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act.
(2.) THE petitioner's Form-A was ear lier rejected on 27-4-1991. THE petitioner filed a writ petition No. 417 (HC) of 1995 before this Court. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court pointed out that the result of the enquiry shows that the conduct of the convict m the prison and outside the prison is satisfactory and there exists no possibility of repetition of such offence and the possibility is that the petitioner would lead a peaceful life and there is no possibility of breach of peace. THE Probation Officer had submitted that there exists no possibility that the petitioner would lead peaceful life. THE State Government on the basis of the said report rejected the pre-mature release of the petitioner. This Court by order dated 19-10-1995 quashed the said order and directed the State Government to con sider the case of the petitioner's pre-mature release again. THEreafter, the State Government considered the case of the petitioner's pie-mature release and rejected Form-A of the petitioner vide order dated 1-2-1996 on the following grounds: (i) THE convict is hardened criminal. (ii) THE proposed guardian is not fit and she cannot control the convict. (in) THE dispute between the parties still exists and has not been finalised and ill-feelings still exist between the parties. THErefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to lead peaceful life. THE Proba tion Board after making an enquiry sub mitted a report in favour of the petitioner pointing out that the petitioner has al ready served out more than 24 years actual sentence and 19 years with remission. It is not disputed that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory. THE Board has also considered that the petitioner had already been released on parole but no adverse report was ever received against him. THE Probation Board also pointed out that co-convict of this incident namely; Bhurji Lal has already been released by the State on Licence. THE Probation Board considered the above-mentioned facts and thereafter, submitted a report in favour of the petitioner. From the perusal of the order, it appears that he State Govern ment without considering the fact that the petitioner has already been released on parole 13 times but no adverse report was ever received against him, land his co-con vict resident of the same village has already been released on licence but still no un toward incident took place but the State Government rejected the Form-A on the ground that the dispute between the par ties still exists. It is also pointed out that in the order passed by the State Government the petitioner has been described as a hardened criminal but there is nothing on the record to show that he was involved in any other case previously or later on, after this incident. The present case appears to be a single incident only which was alleged to be committed by the petitioner. The Probation Board after considering the report came to the conclusion that the petitioner is fit for pre-mature release on licence. No doubt the State Government is not bound to accept the report but all the same, the State Govern ment is bound to give reasons for overrul ing the recommendations of the Board and the order passed by the State Government must be fair and reasonable and not ar bitrary. There is nothing on the record to show, as pointed out above, that the petitioner is a hardened criminal or he will not lead a peaceful life if, he is released on licence. Lastly, it is also pointed out that in the impugned order, the Board has also pointed out that the petitioner's wife who is proposed to be guardian of the petitioner is fit to control him. The Proba tion Board in its recommendations, has pointed out that the petitioner's wife has no criminal history and she can be ap pointed as guardian. In the enquiry report it is alleged that the general reputation of the petitioner's wife is not good but there is nothing on the record to show that as to how the general reputation of the petitioner's wife is not good, specially when the Board finds her suitable for ap pointment of the guardian.
(3.) IN view of the facts stated above, the present writ petition is hereby, allowed. The impugned order dated 1-2-1996 is hereby quashed and the State Government is directed to re-consider the matter and pass fresh order in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Writ petition allowed. .;