MHM/ W3 (Criminal) Na. §7¥§9 OF 2009 §ETE?§@KER :— (Ii‘i jaiE) RESPGNDENTS 6 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE I'EON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Gore Lal son of 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.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary for Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Chairman, Probation Board of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Inspector General of Prison, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (co) Collector, Korba, District Korba (co). Superintendent of Police, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CL) N0. 5759 of 2009 PETITIONER : ‘ Gore Lal. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ Respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 27‘ day of August, 2010) 1. The petitQner challenges the legality and validity of the communication dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure P/S) whereby the petitioner has been informed that vide order dated 16.6.2009 (Annexure R/3) the application of the petitioner for his release from prison on probation under the provisions of the Madhya PradeSh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules, 1 964 ’), was rejected. 2. The facts, in/nutshell, are that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of thehlndian Penal Code for commission of murder of one Paras Ram and was sentenced to undergo , imprisonment for life. The petitioner, after having completed 12 years of imprisonment, made an application for release on probation under the provisions of Rules, 1964. The State Government, by order dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure P/5) informed the Director General (Jail) that the are case of the petitioner alongwith 10 other persons were considered and looking from all angles, it was not found suitable for release of the petitioner on probation under the provisions of the Rules, 1964. Contention of Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the application of a prisoner can be rejected only on the ground that if the District Magistrate after consulting the authorities, is of the opinion that the prisoner is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if released from prison. No such opinion has been set out in the recommendation dated 6.7.2009 and as such, the impugned order is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Rules, 1964. Further, it is stated that the report of the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Korba has not been received by the petitioner, though the Additional District Magistrate, Korba, on the basis of report of the Superintendent of Police, Korba, observed that the petitioner’s case has not been recommended for release from prison. According to the petitioner, the report dated 08.04.2008 (Annexure R/l) of the Superintendent of Police, Korba, is not proper as no reasons for not recommending the case of the petitioner for his release has been stated. On receipt of the recommendation and on consideration of other grounds, the State Probation Board comprisingof Principal Secretary, Home, Jail Department, Director General of Police, andone non— governmental member, came to the conclusion that after having considered the case from all angles, the case of the petitioner was not a f1t case for recommending his release on probation under the provisions of the Act, 1964. 2”.