HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9106 of 2023 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. Heard Sri Furkan Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Probation Board after considering various factors required under the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, had recommended the case of the petitioner for release on remission on completion of 22 years 1 month 28 days incarceration on 26.9.2022 but the same has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 28.6.2023 without recording any reason for not accepting the report. Thus, the submission is that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 338/2022 filed by one Manoj Yadav and others including the petitioner herein, had directed the respondent-State to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in the case of premature release of the petitioners and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Court in case they are aggrieved by such an order. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the case of the petitioner herein was considered and two convicts, namely, Manoj Kumar Yadav and Dinesh Yadav have been released on probation but the application of the petitioner has been rejected without passing any reasoned and speaking order, whereas the cases of all the three convicts are similar. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Furkan Pathan Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Vikram Singh Alias Puttan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lucknow, U.P. And Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned AGA, vehemently opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the case of the petitioner has rightly been considered in accordance with law and the petitioner has been found ineligible for release, therefore, his application has been rejected by means of the impugned order. He, however, could not contradict that reasons could not be assigned in the impugned order. On a query, he also could not point out any reasons in the counter affidavit filed by the State for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for release on probation. 5. After considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and documents placed on record of this petition, this Court finds that in the impugned order, though it has specifically been stated that the district administration had recommended the case of the petitioner also for release on probation on completion of 17 year 3 month 26 days incarceration without remission and 22 years 1 month 28 days incarceration with remission but the Probation Board had recommended for not releasing the petitioner without assigning any reason. The impugned order has also not assigned any reason as to why the report of the district administration has not been accepted. 6. It is settled law that the order affecting the personal liberty of a person cannot be passed without assigning any reason and disclosing the reasons particularly in the case in which the district administration has recommended the case for release, without discarding the reasons assigned by the district administration. Both the reports have also not been placed on record. 7. However, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that it has been passed without assigning any reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for release under the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 whereas similarly circumstanced convicts have been released as discussed above. 8. Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.6.2023 is hereby quashed with a direction to the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned and CRLP No. 9106 of 2023 2 speaking order expeditiously, say within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Consequences to follow accordingly as per law. October 16, 2025 Fahim/- CRLP No. 9106 of 2023 3 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench