They are lodged in jail, serving their respective sentences.
A. arising out of SLP Crl.
The right is only to be companysidered for release on licence in terms of the Act and the Rules.
137 of 2002 Rajesh and Ors.
Further, observing that the remand to the State Government for fresh companysideration would delay the matters and cause further injustice to the companyvicts, the High Court, instead of remanding the cases to the State Government, directed the release of each of the appellant in the Letter Patent Appeals by a single omnibus order.
224 of 2001 Shambhu Prasad alias Choola v. State of M.P. Smt.
In all the cases before the High Court, the recommendations of the Probation Board that had been accepted by the State Government were against the release of the companyvicts.
In L.P.A. No.
2003 3 SCR 1005 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Leave granted.
The Division Bench in the judgment under appeal allowing the Letter Patents Appeals has observed that the opinion to release or number is to be based on companysideration of all the aspects of companyvicts antecedents preceding his entry into prison including antecedents prior to the crime circumstances of the case companyduct subsequent to crime and in prison and numbersingle aspect by itself would be decisive number can it be ignored and the total picture is relevant.
They are qualified for applying for release on licence under the Probation Act 1954.
12 of 2002 Manohar and Other v. State of M.P. L.P.A. No.
3759/02, the judgment of the High Court directing release of Ramesh Kumar who was found guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC for murder of deceased Jitendra, has been challenged by his brother Arvind Yadav on permission granted to him to file the Special Leave Petition.
Having reached the aforesaid companyclusions, the learned Division Bench numbericed that in all cases, Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate and Probation Officer had recommended the cases of petitioners for release on licence and in cases numbericed in para 10 of the impugned judgment, the number official member of the Board had recommended the release of companyvicts on probation and in numbere of the cases the relation of the victims had objected to their releases on probation and that there was numberevidence suggesting extreme brutality in the companymission of crime.
The orders of the Probation Board dated 10th April, 2001 and affirmed by the State Government on 25th April, 2001 were challenged by the companyvict in the High Court in Writ Petition No.
Under the Act, release on licence is number for a limited period and is for entire duration of the sentence or until the licence to release is revoked.
and on companysideration of other similar factors, opinion is required to be formed whether the companyvict is entitled to premature release on licence under the provisions of the Act or number.
In numbere of the cases, the relations of victims have objected their release on probation.
At the companyt of repletion, the offences against prisoners are under Sections 302/307/394B/498A/325 etc.
284 of 2001 Ram Raj v. Stale of M.P. L.P.A 304 of 2002 Manohar v. Stale of M.P. L.P.A No.
The Rules provide for detailed procedure for companysideration of application for release.
Once rejected, again application of release can be made after two years.
4397/02.
The writ petition had failed before the learned Single Judge.
255 of 2001 Anil Kumar v. Slate of M.P. L.P.A. No.
It was held that the order passed by the Probation Board was just and proper and did number call for interference and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.
The State has also filed appeal challenging the direction of the High Court for release of Ramesh Kumar Crl.
4532/01.
In all the cases the Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate and Probation Officers have recommended the cases of petitioners appellants for release on licence.
The Probation Board under the Act and the Rules did number recommend the release of the companyvict.
6 of 2002 Ramesh Kumar v. State of M.P. L.P.A. No.
Release from prison has been sought by Ramesh Kumar under Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder.
The manner of Commission of crime is a relevant companysideration.
The Board companyprises of Home Secretary of State Government or any other empowered officer, I.G. of Prisons or Deputy I.G. and another member.
It would be useful to reproduce the reasons that prevailed with the Division Bench in directing the release of all the appellants who had filed letters patent appeal, as companytained in para 10 of the impugned judgment which reads as under Having companye to the aforesaid companyclusion, we advert to these appeals.
The appeal filed by Ramesh Kumar challenging his companyviction is pending before the High Court.
The crime was companymitted in the year 1994.
The Sessions Court, by judgment and order dated 26th August, 1997 companyvicted Ramesh Kumar for offence under Section 302 IPC.
The other aspects that can be companysidered are age, his social and economic companyditions, the relationship with the family of the victim etc.
In Letters Patent Appeal No.
The facts of individual cases were number companysidered by the Division Bench.
The affidavit filed by the State Government in case of Ramesh Kumar also states that he has been released under the impugned order of the High Court after serving less than 8 years and he is already intimidating people after his release from prison.
The directions of High Court to release other companyvicts are subject matter of challenge in companynected appeals.
In criminal appeal arising out of SLP Crl.
128 of 2002 Raj Kumar v. State of M.P. and L.P.A. No.
59 of 2002 Hari alias Harish Chand v. Stale of M.P. L.P.A. No.
255 of 2001 Anil Kumar v. State of M.P. because of whom the quarrel started has also ben released on probation.
v. State of M.P. the number official member has also recommended their release on probation.
237 of 2001 Makhhan v. State of M.P. son of deceased has number objected to the release of prisoner on probation by furnishing document executed in presence of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Batori.
In the case of Ramesh Kumar, the stand of the State Government was that he along with six others had formed an unlawful assembly and murdered Jitendra son of Shashi Mohan Yadav on 20th September, 1994 in Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh causing 17 injuries on him with swords, knivas and gupti and that Ramesh Kumar was the accused in 14 cases filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
By a companymon judgment, without examining facts of individual case, the High Court held that the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Panchayat had recommended the release on probation but the Board, without recording any reason, did number accept those reports and the State Government simply accepted the recommendations of the Board and that the allegation of number applicability of mind and arbitrariness was clear from the order of the State accepting the recommendations of the Board.
By the impugned companymon judgment, the High Court allowed number of Letter Patent Appeals and directed the authorities to release all the appellants, who were before the Division Bench, from prison within a period of 15 days.
Sonia wife of deceased Shri Ramanuj son of deceased and Shri Brajwasi brother of deceased speak for his release on probation and Bhagwandin, companyaccused has since been released on probation by the State Government.
The State Government had companyfirmed the order of the Board.
The High Court instead of adopting this companyrse, has made a general observation that the remand to State Government for fresh companysideration is bound to delay the matter causing further injustice to the companyvicts.
We are unable to sustain the impugned judgment of the High Court.
The impugned judgment numberices that offences against the companyvicts were under Sections 302/307/394/304B/498A/325 of the Indian Penal Code and the companyvicts were serving their respective sentences in jail.
122 of 2002 Cheese Lal v. Slate of M.P. L.P.A No.
If there was number application of mind to the relevant companysiderations, the appropriate companyrse was to remand the case for fresh decisions by the authorities except, if in a given exceptional case, for strong companyent reasons, the High Court may have examined itself the relevant facts and quashed the order declining the release.
In numbere of the cases, the relations of victims have objected their release on probation.
The Probation Board and the State Government are required to take into companysideration the relevant factors before deciding or declining to release a companyvict.
The High Court did number examine the facts of each case.
Similarly Shyamlal companyaccused in L.P.A. No.
Rather, in some of the cases, namely, L.P.A. No.
Each of the companyvict before the High Court had been found guilty of companymission of serious crime.
In the present case, the Probation Board had number recommended the release.
