a. WJ é}é%&n (Vy w/ggz‘gw @7m Me 'Kmf %v%W 97a w» 9W ‘ Smw @ench ML 2M?” Petition ef wfwm” Preseated on "QUOLJBA‘ with . by sm‘ ...o€{.£amdv it be; checkec? fixed {ar‘........... ..:"~.!.%./f7— ‘ .«u . u.......m...-.. V - x ”nay-unu- 9%”. m. a. i2; w @%$/Lfy/L’— OH ~ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.282 OF 2002 PETITIONER Pravee‘n q Versus - State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present :— Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate appears as amicus curiae. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ‘ Gowri ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 3rd day of December, 201 0) ago“! 1. Heard. 2. The office reference was prepared on the basis of ietter dated 19—01-2002 sent by one prisoner namely; Praveen S/o Phoolchand from Central Jail, Raipur, stating therein that he is‘ not being considered for reiease on probation. 3. In a writ petition No.911 of 1999 (Pankaj Gupta v. State of MP. & Another), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh having considered all the aspects of the matter, dismissed the petition holding that the decision of the State Probation Board was just and proper, on 19—01-2000. Thus, no further direction for release on probation can be granted. 4. Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the State, Submits that during pendency of this office reference, the petitioner has been released on bail on 17-03-2003 by the Hih Court in pending appeal. 5. So far as the application of the petitioner for consideration of his release on probation is concerned, there is no infirmity or. illegality, as nothing has been pointed out in the order passed by the State Probation Board on 29—03-2001. Accordingly, the writ petition (office reference) is dismissed. Sd/ Judge i” ”’I I ;B L‘.._. g