Judgment N. C. KOCHHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 21-11-1976 in a case registered under Section 302, I. P. C. After trial, he was convicted under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 28-7-1980. The petitioner having served more than 14 years of sentence, his case was put up before the Advisory Board for being released from jail. The Advisory Board recommended that he should be released from jail, but the State Government (respondent No. 1) sought opinion of the Collector and the Superintendent of Police of District Dhaulpur, who reported that since the petitioner had committed an offence punishable u/sec. 302, IPC, his release from jail would have bad effect on the society and there was likelihood of his committing further offence. In this view of the matter, the recommendations of the Advisory Board were not accepted by the State Government, who has continued to detain the petitioner in jail. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the letter dated 3-7-1993 (Annexure R/1) of the District Collector, Dhaulpur enclosing therewith the report dated 15-6-1993 (Annexure R/2) received by him from the District Superintendent of Police, Dhaulpur. According to the Annexure R/2, the Superintendent of Police was of the view that since the petitioner had been convicted for having committed an offence u/sec. 302, IPC, his release from jail would have adverse effect on the society and there is likelihood of his committing further offences. The Collector, vide report (Annexure Rh) has mentioned that on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police and of the District Social Welfare Officer (whose report has not been submitted before this Court), he was of the view that it was not proper to release the petitioner from jail. ( 4 ) NEITHER of the two reports mentions the reasons which made the authorities concerned feel that if released from jail, the petitioner is likely to commit further offences. Simply because, a person has been convicted for an offence punishable u/sec. ( 4 ) NEITHER of the two reports mentions the reasons which made the authorities concerned feel that if released from jail, the petitioner is likely to commit further offences. Simply because, a person has been convicted for an offence punishable u/sec. 302, IPC, there is no ground for feeling that if release from jail, he would commit further offences. It cannot be contended and has rightly not been contended that the cases of the persons convicted u/sec. 302, IPC, cannot be considered for pre-mature release from jail. There is no reason for coming to a reasonable conclusion that a person who undergoes sentence for a period of more than 14 years which is the minimum period prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code, his release would have any bad effect on the society. The information sent by the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be based on the opinion of a reasonable person and there is no reason for the State Government not to have accepted the recommendation of the Advisory Board which has been constituted for considering the cases of persons who can be released from jail after serving the minimum period of sentence. ( 5 ) FOR the abovesaid reasons, we allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner should be released from jail forthwith. The writ petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.