His request was companysidered by the statutory Board, in companypliance of the Division Bench order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1138 of 2002 but he was number found entitled to be released.
The said opinion and the order of the State Government are as follows In the light of the background of the case, it is clear that the past antecedents of the prisoners are number good.
The impugned judgment numberices that offences against the companyvicts were under Sections 302/307/394/304 B/498 A/325 of the Indian Penal Code and the companyvicts were serving their respective sentences in jail.
Thereafter, the same view has been followed inter alia in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abdul Kadir and Another3.
The question raised for our companysideration is whether the High Court ought to release a person under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 read with M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 for short Act and the Rules , if it is found that rejection of the prayer for said release by the companypetent authority was number proper.
He applied for release under the provisions of aforesaid Act and the Rules.
This view was reversed by this Court in Arvind Yadav vs. Ramesh Kumar Others2.
We find force in the companytention raised on behalf of the appellant in view of earlier decision of this Court in Arvind Yadav supra wherein this Court held We are unable to sustain the impugned judgment of the High Court.
It may be mentioned that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court vide Judgment dated 11th April, 2002 in LPA No.212 of 2001 in the matter of Subrato Bachaspati vs. State of M.P.1, had expressed the view that if the relatives of the victim of the crime do number object and there is numberevidence of extreme brutality, the High Court itself companyld direct release numberwithstanding the opinion of the Board and the State.
The respondent was tried for a charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and companyvicted under the said provision in Session Trial No.106 of 1988 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide Order dated 26th July, 1989.
The opinion of the Board was accepted by the State Government.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Aggrieved by the above, the respondent preferred a writ petition which was allowed by Order dated 5th December, 2003.
The prisoner alongwith other company accused persons mercilessly murdered the deceased with the knot of the saree.
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.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against Order dated 5th December, 2003 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition No.1077 of 2003.
Each of the companyvicts before the High Court had been found guilty of companymission of serious crime.
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.
