^' '«.' 111- ^1-'<^sh. -^l -^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR | <k DMsjonJlench^. Hon'bte Shri Dhirendra IVIishra. & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Writ Appeal No. 104 of 2011 Appellant Petitioner Respondents Wahid Hussain, son of Shri Shabbir Hussain, aged 41 years, resident of Bandhwapara, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) -Versus- 1. State .of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Home, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Chairman, Probation Board of Chhattlsgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3. Inspector Generai of Prison, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) 4. Deputy Inspector Generaf of Prison, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 5. Superintendent, Centrai Jail, Raipur (CG) 6. Coilector, Bilaspur, District Biiaspur (CG) 7. Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) Present: Mr. VC Ottalwar with Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, counse! for the appeElanVpetitioner. Mr. MPS Bhatia, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL JUDGIVIENT (22nd March, 2011) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J This writ appeal is directed againstthe orderdated 24 January, 2011 passed in W.P.(c) No.3440/2007, whereby the iearned Single Judge has dismissed the appeliant's petition questioning the legaiity and validity of the order passed by the Probation Board, by which h<s application for reiease on iicence has been rejected. 2. The appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and R.I. for seven years, respectiveiy. However, in appeal preferred by him, he was released on bail by the High Court on 5.9.2001. He submitted an application under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Reiease on Probation Act, 1954 (in short "the Act, 1954"), which was rejected by the Probation Board. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition against the rejection of his application, and the same was allowed, order of the Board was quashed and the Board was directed to reconsider the request of the appeliant for reiease on Eicence under the Act, 1954, strictly in conformjty ^^•--^ y^\ it'.ki: ...... i 1 ^•Sih I '1<S. ^" 2.. 11 with the provlsions of the Act and in the light of observations made In the order. The Board considered the case of the appeliant and a fresh dedsion was taken not to release the appeliai^His.writ petition against the aforesaid order has been again dismissed by the tearned Single Judge by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as per provisions of Section 2 of the Act. 1954, for reieasing a prisoner on licence, the requirement is that it shoutd appear to the Government from his antecedents and his conduct <n the prison that he is likeiy to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. However, respondent No.2 has not recorded any such finding on the basis of material available, and this aspect has not been considered jn the impugned order. The leamed Single Judge aiso failed to see that there was no material before respondent No.2/Board to defer with the recommendations made by the District Magistrate or the District Superintendent of Police. 4. Heard iearned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order as also the report of the Probatlon Board, pleadings jn ths writ petition and documents avaiiable on record. 5. Learned Single Judge, after considering the simiiar arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and after refem'ng to the Fuil Bench judgment of the High Court of MP, wherein the word "antecedents" occurring in Section 2 of the Act, 1954 has been interpreted, held that the word "antecedents" occurring in Section 2 of the Act would also include the circumstances in which the crime was committed. Thus, considering the operative reasons for rejection of the appfication by the Probation Board, it has been he!d that the consideration of the Board was relevant and cannot be said to be extraneous nor vioiative of the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Act, 1954. and accordingiy', the iearned Singie Judge deciined to Interfere with the decision taken by the statutory authority with an observation that interference could not be made unless the same is either vioiatjve of the provisions of law or unless there is defect in the dedsion making process itself or uniess the orders suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 6. After carefully examining the entire record, including the order of the Board and the impugned order, we are in entire agreement with the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order for djsmissing the writ petition fited by the appellant. We find no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, djsmissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge ^ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge