oivisi g.^ E ?tt: S ^'' (1) ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WritAppeal No. (41~<6 of2010(D.B.) APPELLANT/ Petitioner (In Jail) •y RESPONDENTS /^/ •Av.'' ,A\. rQ!^./ \V2 /^ •^'..^'^ ^y' /' .^ ^ <^ Gore Lal, S/o Hans Lal, aged about 42 years, R/o Village- Sirmira, P.S. Pasan, District- Bilaspur (present District Korba) (C.G.) presently confined in Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) VBRSUS / :1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary for Horae Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chairman, Probation Board of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Inspector General of Prison, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Collector, Korba, District-Korba 5. Superintendent of Police, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.) 0 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 SUB-SECJ'ION (1) OF THE CHHAmSGARH HIGH COURTS (APPEAL TQJiIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 Hi<3H COURT Olf- CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUI Non'ble Shri Ohirenctra Mishra & U/hn'MA <S3^iri O M /%H-an<4y<al»'oy 1 I .»fi'^j'is i.i/'itt ••waiiaa atk»sitB,'wii.j(&iitsawt»aAifiSfliji g i.y»'ur Writ ADDeal No.428 of 201U n**;+; **>*-,.-. r «.;»,a<LS%J»i(gS-i />-* ta^ii Oore Lal. S/o Hans Lal. aaed about ^^ t.*^..^ D/.n s/sii/,—^t?;^^^;,.^ n c. "1^.. yct.iii^, rwu v<iiay<i£-OUjiii»ta, r.o. Pasan. Distrlct-Bllaspur (present n;/**..;-** i/^^^n> f^/^\ ^-^^.^^Mi, fc>i<auit-'i rs.^iua/ ^<-»^ pjc.iatsiiuy contined In Central Jail, Bilaspur (CGl VS. Resoondents 1. n A.. 4. State ot Chhattlsaarh, throuqh ots^i Gicii y UKS. Bhawan, Kaipur (CGi Chsirman, Pro&atlon Bosrd of Chhattlsgarh, Ralpur (CG! inspector Generai of Plision, Government of cnhattisaarh, Ralpur frtr'".\ ywi.)/ Collector, KorDa, Distnct-Korba (CG) Superintendent of Pollce, Korba. r\:^t...:,^t i/^^t-,^ //^/-*\ iL^ii»utoi.-"^Ut uca \^^ iui nuinc uepdiiiiieni, Present: ynn Abnay Tiwari, counset for tne apDeliant. Oitit. ^itii V.V.O. ^lUttilJC, L/y. r^UWVi-'at.C; ^-iiSi *^1 Sti i^i tne State. UKAL ORDE R \^^.. ) d-.<-\/ 1 W^ The appeliant was convlcted for offence punishaDie under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life Impnsonment. 1 he appelfant after serving sentence of 12 years tmpnsonment, made an apptication for release on probation under the Drovislon of Madhya Pnsoners' Release on Probation Rutes. 1964 (tor snort 'tne Rules, 1964-). Mowever, the State Government bv order dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure P-5i informed the Uireotor Oenerai (Prisons) (hat thecase of the appeitant along with 10 other persons was considered and looKlnq from all anales. it was not found suitabte tor release ot tne appeilant on Drobatlon under tne provisions of the Rules. 1964. -5- 2. Appellant s wrrt petttton aaainst tne above orcter tias treen turther aismissed by the leamed slngle Judge by the impugned order and ttie instant wrlt appeal Is directed agatnst the aforesaid order. 3. Shri Abhav liwari, fearned counsel ror the apDeliant reiteratea the arguments that were advanced betore the learned sinaie Juaae, whlch have been detailed jn paraarapti-3 of the order. Learnea single Judge, after elaborateiy consldering the arguments of tne appellant dismissed the petitlon with an observation that the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the expresslon of opinion to the effect that the prisoner is likely to abstain from crime, if reteased from prison is the only; criteria for considering the case for retease on probatlon, is not sustalnabte, as the Board has to considerthe case ot tne prisoner from all angles. The appellant cannot clatm as matter of right to release him on probation under the provision of Rules, 1 964 as this is a legislation not facillty to a prisoner to be released on Drobation. 4. Learned counsel for the appettant further arauea that from tiare perusal of Rule 15(2) of tne Ruies, 1864, it is evident that the District Magistrate is isound to contine its report as per SUD- Ruie 2 ot Rule 15 or the ftules, 1964. However, the report of the Supertntendent of Police. Korba is not as per the Drovisions of the Rule 15(2) and to that extent, ttiere is failure on the part of the respondents in the exercise of turisdiction under Rute 15(2) ot the Rules, 1964. 5. We are unabie to accept the above argument of Shri Tlwarl as the application for probation of the appellant has been considered from atl angles after due enquiry and the learned single Judge has nghtly declined to interfere in the discretion J- exercisea by the respondent autriorities in rejectina the aRReltant's application tor release on probation. 6. We find no suftstance in thls appeal. The same deserves to be and Is accordinatv dismissed. —— prn Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge