Anil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1866 MP

                                                                     1
                                     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                                                           W.P. No.20210/2021
                                                 Anil S/o Kailashchandra V/s. State of M.P.

                                Indore, Dated:- 10/02/2022

                                        Shri Manohar Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                        Shri   Kushagra    Jain,   learned    Panel    Lawyer     for   the

                                respondents/State.

1. Heard.

2. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.04.2021

(Annexure P/1)passed by the District Collector, District Ratlam,

respondent No.2; whereby the application preferred by the petitioner

for releasing him on temporary leave on parole has been rejected.

3. The petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable

under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 25

of the Arms Act by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, District Ratlam in

Sessions Trial No.312/2012 by judgment dated 23.01.2021 and has

been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. As per the petitioner

he has completed almost 9 years in jail hence is eligible for being

released on temporary leave on parole. He hence made an application

for his release on parole before the respondents on the ground that the

health of his sister-in-law is not well.

4. Application submitted by the petitioner was duly forwarded and

opinion was sought for from Superintendent of Police, Ratlam and Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.02.14 18:43:16 IST

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.20210/2021 Anil S/o Kailashchandra V/s. State of M.P.

Superintendent of Central Jail, Ujjain as regards eligibility of the

petitioner for being released on parole. The report was submitted by

Superintendent of Police, District Ratlam on 01.04.2021 in which it

was opined that both the sureties of the petitioner are females and it is

possible that both of them may not be able to control him. Release of

the petitioner shall in all probability result in disturbance of peace in

the society. The possibility of the life of the petitioner himself being

put at risk was also expressed. It was concluded that petitioner has

committed grave offence of committing murder due to a land dispute

and both the parties are of the same village, hence dispute can arise

between them again at the instance of family of the victim.

Recommendation was made for not releasing the petitioner on parole.

Concurring with the said opinion, by the impugned order dated

12.04.2021 the application of the petitioner has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting

petitioner's application for his release on parole it has not been

considered that while remaining in jail he has not committed any

offence and there was no likelihood of him committing any such

offence. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner

without application of mind. The provisions of M.P. Prisoner's

Release on Probation Act, 1954 and M.P. Prisoners Release on Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.02.14 18:43:16 IST

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.20210/2021 Anil S/o Kailashchandra V/s. State of M.P.

Probation Rules, 1964 have not at all been taken into consideration.

The impugned order is in violation of provisions of Section 31-A of

the Act, 1954 hence deserves to be set aside.

6. Section 31-A of M.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Act, 1954

is as under :-

"31-A. Grant of leave to Prisoners - (1) Subject to the provisions to this part and to such conditions as may be prescribed, the State Government or any authority to which the State Government may delegate its power in this behalf may grant leave to any prisoner who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than three years for a period not exceeding twenty-one days in a year, excluding the time required for journeys to the first place of his visit immediate after departure from the prison and from the place of last visit to the person back.

Conditions of Leave - The prisoners shall be granted leave under Sub-section (1) of Section 31-A of the Act on the following conditions, namely:

(a) He fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 31-A of the Act;

(b) He has not committed any offences in jail between the date of application for leave and receipt of the order of such leave.

(c) The Releasing Authority must be satisfied that the leave may be granted without detriment to the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.02.14 18:43:16 IST

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.20210/2021 Anil S/o Kailashchandra V/s. State of M.P.

public interest;

(d) He gives in writing to the Releasing Authority the place or places which he intends to visit during the period of his leave and undertake not to visit any other place during such period without obtaining prior permission of the Releasing Authority in that behalf; and

(e) He should furnish security to the satisfaction of the Releasing Authority if such security is demanded by the Releasing Authority."

7. As per the aforesaid provision itself a prisoner can be released

on parole only if the releasing authority is satisfied that leave may be

granted without detriment to the public interest. In the present case

the releasing authority has recorded a categoric finding to the effect

that release of the petitioner would be detriment to the public interest.

His opinion is based upon the report submitted by Superintendent of

Police, District Ratlam wherein it was opined that sureties of the

petitioner are females and would not be able to control him. There

would be every possibility of breach of peace and there could again

be a dispute between both the parties as they belong to the same

village. Since the releasing authority was of the opinion that release

of petitioner would be detriment to public interest, it cannot be said

Signature Not Verified that he has committed any error in rejecting the application of the SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.02.14 18:43:16 IST

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.20210/2021 Anil S/o Kailashchandra V/s. State of M.P.

petitioner.

8. The report which was submitted by the Superintendent of

Police, District Ratlam has been relied upon by the Collector while

rejecting the application. Report was quite exhaustive. It cannot be

said that the Collector had not applied its mind while rejecting the

application. Only for the reason that he concurred with the report it

cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without any

application of judicial mind.

9. Moreover it is seen that there is absolutely no material available

on record to show that the sister-in-law of the petitioner is ill in any

manner which was the ground taken by the petitioner seeking his

release on parole. There was no other ground taken for being released

on parole. The family condition and the members of his family had

not been disclosed by the petitioner. Thus taking the overall view of

the fact situation it cannot be said that the Collector has committed

any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner.

10. Thus, I do not find any ground for interfering with the

impugned order. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby

dismissed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 2022.02.14 18:43:16 IST