(7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.f&)......|........Ss^ ^-°\\ PETITIONER , Dileep Kumar S/o Shri Bhola Sharan Mishra aged about-30 years R/o Chandra Shekhar Nagar Purani Basti Raipur (C.G). VERSUS J. RESPONDENTS ^l. .^^ ^^y ,,.<:^.^" ^'\^ '^.•••" i--'^- ..-•'' /2. ^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Secretary Department of Home ,D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur Chairman, Probation Board of Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) Inspector General of Prisons, Govt. of Chhattisgarh Raipur. Collector Raipur(C.G.) Superintended of Police Raipur (C.G.). ^fiss^i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 ^OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF SUITABLE WRIT / ORDER OR DIRECTION. . The above named petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:- Particulars ofthe petitioner As mentioned in the eause title above. The relation between petitioner and the convicted prisoner Dharmendra Tripathi is that the petitioner is the son of prisoner's uncle (brother of prisoner's mother). ^- y^SSsK-K <s' w, HIGHGOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETmON fCr.) No.Ol of201 1 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Dileep Kumar. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WKIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE'CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA . • . SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shri Uttam Pandey,Advocate for the petitioner. Slui V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 03rd day ofMay, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner sybmits that the brother offhe petitioner, namely, Dhannendra Tripathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the prisoner') was convieted for tlie offence punishable under section 302 read with section 201 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and farther seven years imprisomnentrespectively, with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively by the 8 Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Raipur, in S.T. No. 483/2002. Against the said conviction and sentence, the prisoner preferred an appeal before this Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.08.2010. The prisoner is in judicial custody since 28.08.2002 and has undergone more than 8 years imprisomnent, excluding the remission period. The prisoner was released on temporary licence issued by fhe Collector once and thrice by the Inspector General, Prisons, Raipur. During his release on temporary licence, the behaviour ofthe prisoner was yery decent. The prisoner moved an 4- 4. application for his release on probation under the provisions ofthe M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (for short the Act') and his request has been rejected by the Probation Board by its order dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P/6) when the District Magistrate as well as Superinteadent of Police, Raipur, have recommended for release of the prisoner. Even the Welfare OfBcer collected fhe opiiiion of the Coimcillor of the ward and residents ofthe locality who have given positive response. On the ofher hand, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that since the prisoner committed murder ofhis own father andcaused disappearance oflfae body by burying it in the compound ofthe house, which is a yery grave offence and also heinous in nature, his application for release on licence under the Act, 1954, was rejected. Heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, perused the pleadings and dociunents appended thereto. At the first instance, while rejecting the prisoner's application for release on probation, the Board has recorded that he had committed a grav^ ofFence ofmurder ofhis own father. It is true that the Probation Board is not bound by the reeommendations of the District Magistrate or flie Superintendent of Police and it can take its own decision on the basis ofmaterials resting with it but at the same time, it needs to be noticed that the Probation Board cannot act arbitrarily 6r unreasonably. However, there was no other material available to form a different opinion thanthat ofthe District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police, Raipur. Tlie reason given by Ihe Probation Board is only that the prisoner had :\ 1.- Amit 5. 6. committed a very ihhuman and heinous crime. However, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia would not interfere with the decision taken by the statutory authority unless the same is either violative ofthe provisions oflaw or unless there is defect-in the decision making process itself or unless the order suffers &om arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Certamly, &e ^wit Court would not aet as an appellate authority to substitute its own opinion in the place of opinion formed by the statutory authority on the basis of some material, which is relevant fortaking decision. As a result, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondent. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, before parting with the case, on the request ofleamed eounsel appearing for the petitioner, the prisoner is at liberty to make an application for his release on probation before the Chhattisgarh State Probation Board, the meeting ofwhich is likely to be held next month. The Board may reconsider the same. Sd/- SarishK.Agnihotri Judge ,LfrTSi;@g{g^^^^^ '••-ysBWa-^-^v."..