Allahabad High Court
Gaulal @ Bela vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 7 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:196830-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7940 of 2025
Gaulal @ Bela
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 passed by respondent no.3 in petitioner's pre-mature release application under Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is further seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to grant pre-mature release to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has been enlarged in Central Jail, Naini for 10 years 4 months and 8 days in actual custody. The petitioner has filed an application for his premature release under Article 161 of Constitution of India before the respondent authorities. On the said application, the authorities concerned sought report from Superintendent of Police, Banda. The Station House Officer, Police Station - Marka, District - Banda furnished the details of petitioner sought by Superintendent of Police, Banda vide its letter bearing No.421/1994 (2023) dated 21.08.2023. The said application for premature release of the petitioner was rejected by respondent no.3 vide its order dated 24.01.2025. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed mechanically, without application of mind in arbitrary manner. It is further submitted that conduct and behaviour of petitioner is very good and appreciated by the jail authorities from time to time. Petitioner is more than 73 years old person and as per S.H.O. report, petitioner is unable to commit any further offence due to his old age.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondent authority has released the petitioners Shambhu Ratan and others in the same matter vide order dated 06.01.2025. Therefore, the order impugned is also discriminatory in nature and deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that on 18.09.1982, the accused-petitioner along with 9 co-accused had committed murder of 2 persons by assaulting them with Lathi and guns. The petitioner has been convicted for life imprisonment by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda vide its judgment and order dated 02.02.1984 passed in Sessions Trial No.74/1983, under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 IPC. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, criminal appeal was filed by the appellant before this Court and the Court vide order dated 14.07.2017 dismissed the aforesaid appeal and affirmed the punishment of life imprisonment. It is further submitted that till 12.02.2024 the petitioner served the sentence of 7 years, 10 months and 24 days excluding remission and served the sentence of 9 years, 6 moths and 9 days including remission.
6. Learned AGA vehemently submitted that the Mercy Petition Committee in its report mentioned that the petitioner was involved in heinous crime of double murder and in case, such prisoner is granted premature release, wrong message would go in the society, therefore, the Mercy Petition Committee considering all the aspects of the matter has not recommended for premature release of the petitioner Gaulal @ Bela.
7. Learned AGA further submitted that in view of the above-mentioned facts, the State Government vide its letter dated 24.01.2025 informed the Director General of Police/Inspector General, Prison Administration and Reform Services, U.P., Lucknow that the Hon'ble Governor of the State of U.P., after due consideration, has rejected the above-said Mercy Petition for premature release of the petitioner.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State respondents and perused the material on record.
9. In the instant case, petitioner has served for more than 10 years, as stated in paragraph no.6 of writ petition. As per the provisions of United Provinces Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1938") are meant with a thrust to implement reformative theory in criminal jurisprudence with a fundamental principle that it is the crime that is to be hatred and not the criminal. A criminal deserves to be rehabilitated in main stream of the society by various means and his release by license after undergoing long period of sentence is also made for that.
10. Looking to the intent of the Act, 1938, we are of considered opinion that the State before denying release by license as per provisions of Act, 1938 should have examined all relevant factors necessary for rehabilitation of a convict after undergoing sentence for a considerable period.
11. In the case in hand, as already stated, as the petitioner has served the sentence for a period of more than 9 years with remission, more than 7 years without remission and he is the convict of double murder case. While passing the impugned order the competent authority has taken into consideration all the factors.
12. For proper adjudication of the instant case, it is necessary to reproduce here-in-below:-
"?????? ????? ????? ????????, ??????? ????, ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???, ????? ?????????/????????????, ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????, ????? ??????, ?????
??????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????-2 ????: ????? 24 ?????, 2025
????? ????????? ???????, ????, ????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????, ?????? ????-????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????,
????????? ????? ?? ??????????? (???), ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ???????, 5000 ???? ?? ???? ??????-30216/???????-5-???? ???? ????? 16.09.2024. ?????? 07.10.2024 ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?????
2- ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????, ??????, ????-?????, ????-???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? 18.09.1982 ?? 09 ???????????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? 02 ?????????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????-74/1983 ??? ????? ?? ????-148, 302, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 ?? ???????? ??? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ?????????, ????? ?? ???? ????? 02.02.1984 ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???, ????? ???? ??? ???? ????????, ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 14.07.2017 ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? 12.02.2024 ?? 07 ???? 10 ??? 24 ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??? 09 ???? 06 ??? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? 12.02.2024 ?? ??????? 07 ????, 10 ???, 24 ??? ??? ??????? 09 ????, 06 ??? 09 ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????? (02 ?????????? ?? ?????) ?? ????????, ??? ???????? ?? ????? ???????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???
3-????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ???????, ????, ????????? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ???? (????? ?????? 652/2022) ????? ???? ??????, ?????? ????-????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? 161 ?? ???????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ???????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????"
13. As per materials on record, the applicant is convict of double murder case and awarded life imprisonment. He has also not served substantial part of the sentence. The competent authority has taken into consideration the report of S.H.O. as well as other material on record and found it not a fit case to release the petitioner at pre-mature stage.
14. Taking into consideration the report of S.H.O. as well as other material on record and also discussions in foregoing paragraphs, we do not find any good ground to quash the impugned order and release the petitioner at pre-mature stage.
15. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
November 7, 2025
Atul
