Ajay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ajay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the competent authority to process the petitioner's premature-release application strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of this order, the claim to be decided independently of the present order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should give direction under Article 226 to the competent authority to decide the petitioner's pending application for premature release under the U.P. Prisoner Release on Probation Act, 1938 in light of the State Government policy dated 01.08.2018. +1 more

Court's answer

Not inclined to keep the matter pending, the Court directed that in case the petitioner's claim is sustainable under the Act 1938, the said application shall be processed strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's claim shall be decided independently without any influence of the order passed in the present writ petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Double Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Anil Kumar-X, JJ.; order dated 21.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:59295-DB) disposed of CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1920 of 2025 (Ajay v. State of U.P. and 3 Others). The petitioner, whose claim for premature release under the U.P. Prisoner Release on Probation Act, 1938 ('Act 1938') had been rejected and whose request was not acceded to under the 2018 policy, with the matter stated to be pending before the Inspector General (Prisons), sought an Article 226 direction to decide his pending representation, counsel having relied on Surendra @ Sunda v. State of U.P. (SLP (Criminal) Diary No.28783 of 2023). The Court held that if the claim is sustainable under the Act 1938, the application must be processed strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months from production of a certified copy of the order before the authority concerned, and decided independently without any influence of the present order.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59295-DB

Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1920 of 2025

Petitioner :- Ajay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh,Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

Heard Shri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

Instant writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the competent authority to decide the application of petitioner for premature release by the respondent under U.P. Prisoner Release on Probation Act, 1938 (herein after referred as Act 1938) and also in the light of State Government policy dated 01.08.2018 or any other policy which is currently in force since representation is still pending consideration. While pressing the relief on 04.02.2025 the counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra @ Sunda Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.28783 of 2023. In the aforesaid background the Court has adjourned the proceeding and directed the learned AGA for the State-respondents to file an affidavit of compliance. Later on further time was accorded to the learned AGA for the Staterespondents to get an instruction. Even though on the previous dated i.e. 10.03.2025 counter affidavit was filed by the learned AGA for the State-respondents, which is already on record.

Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents inform the Court that under Act 1938 the claim of the petitioner has already rejected. He further apprise the Court that as per the policy under 2018, the request of the petitioner was not acceded, but as the petitioner prays for premature release, in view of the provision contained under Act 1938, the matter is pending consideration before Inspector General Prison and he will take a final decision on the said application under the Act 1938.

Considering the factual situation, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration, suffice to indicate that in case the claim of the petitioner is sustainable under the Act 1938, the said application of the petitioner is to be processed strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.

With the aforesaid observation the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Suffice to indicate that the claim of the petitioner would be decide independently without any influence of the order passed today.

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 VKG

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad