ARVIND YADAV versus RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 28-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
ARVIND YADAV 
V. 
RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2003 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 and rules 
thereunder: 
A 
B 
Murder-Conviction by the trial court-Pending appeals in the High C 
Court, application for release on licence flied by the accused-probation 
Board passing an order not recommending release of convicts-Affirmed by 
the State -Challenge to--Dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court-
Reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing release of the 
convicts on the ground that Probation Board had not applied its mind and D 
acted arbitrarily-On appeal, Held: accused have no indefensible right to be 
released except for release on licence on the recommendations of the Probation 
Board and approval of the State Government thereon-Individual 
recommendations of authorities/members is of no consequence-State 
Government/Board considers relevant facts before recommending/not 
recommending for release-High Court on noticing flaws in the E 
recommendations could appropriately remand the matter to State Government! 
Board for consideration afresh and could have refrained itself in examining 
the facts except for strong cogent reasons-Hence malter remanded to State 
Government to decide afresh-Directiorls issued-Penal Code, 1860- Sections 
302, 304, 307, 325, 394 and 498-A. 
Respondent, one of the accused in a murder case, was convicted by 
the Court of Sessions, against which an appeal was pending before the High 
Court. Jn the meanwhile, an application for release on licence was filed by 
F 
the convict under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on 
Probation Act and Rules the Probation Board did not recommend the G 
release of the convict. The order was affirmed by the State Government. 
Respondent and other convicts challenged the order. Single Judge of the 
High Court dismissed the writ petitions. On appeal, the Division Bench of 
the High Court directed the release of the convicts on the ground of non-
application of mind and arbitrariness on the part of the Probation Board 
1005 
H 
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A in not recommending their release on licence. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court without examining the facts of the 
individual case held that the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police 
and Panchayat had recommended the release on probation but the Board, 
B without recording any reason, did not accept those reports and the State 
Government simply accepted the recommendations of the Board and that 
the allegation of non-applicability of mind and arbitrariness was clear from 
the order of the State accepting the recommendations of the Board; and 
that since the remand to the State Government for fresh consideration 
C would delay the matters and cause further injustice to the convicts, The 
High Court directed the release of each of the appellants in the Letters 
Patent Appeals by a single omnibus order instead of remanding the cases 
to the State Government. Each of the convicts had been found guilty of 
commission of serious crime and they were serving their respective 
sentences in jail. In all these cases, the recommendations of the Probation 
D Board that had been accepted by the State Government were against the 
release of tht: convicts. If there was non-application of mind to the relevant 
considerations, the appropriate course was to remand the case for fresh 
decision by the authorities except, if in a given exceptional case, for strong 
cogent reasons, the High Court might have examined itself the relevant facts 
E and quashed the order declining the release. Instead, the High Court has 
made a general observation that the remand to State Government for fresh 
consideration is bound to delay the matter causing further injustice to the 
convicts. (1010-E-H; 1011-A( 
1.2. There are factual infirmities in the impugned judgment. It is also 
F to be borne in mind that the victim and the family of the victim who have 
suffered at the hands of the convict have also some rights. The convicts 
have no indefensible right to be released. The right is only to be considered 
for release on licence in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release 
on Probation Act and the Rules. The Probation Board and the State 
G Government are .required to take into consideration the relevant factors 
before deciding or declining to release a con

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.