ORDER (Oral) Singh, C.J. -- 1. Through this judgment, we propose to decide this batch of fifteen Letters Patent Appeals [L.P.A. No. 212 of 2001 (Subrato Bachaspati v. State or M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 224 of 2001 (Shambhu Prasad alias Chhota v. State of M.P.), L.P.A. No. 237 of 2001 (Makhhan v. State of M.P. and another), L.P.A. No. 245 of 2001 (Jawala Prasad v. State or M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 254 of 2001 (Ram Murti v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 (Anil Kumar v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 284 of 2001 (Ram Raj v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 304 of 2001 (Manohar v. State or M.P. and others), L.P.A. No.6 of 2002 (Ramesh Kumar v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 12 of 2002 (Manohar and others v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 59 of 2002 (Hari alias Harish Chand v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 121 of 2002 (Ishwar Dayal v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 122 of 2002 (Gheese Lal and others v. State of M.P. and others), L.P.A. No. 128 of 2002 (Raj Kumar v. State of M.P. and others) and L.P.A. No. 137 of 2002 (Rajesh and others v. State of M.P. and others) since common question of law arises for consideration in all of them, arising out of separate judgments passed by learned single Judge in the writ petitions filed by appellants/petitioners for release on probation under the M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (for short 'Probation Act, 1954') and the M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules'). 2. Shortly stated, petitioners-appellants were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for offences like, under sections 304B/498A/302/307/394/325/323/147/148/149/34, Indian Penal Code read with section 27 Arms Act, 1959 respectively. They are undergoing sentences in various jails in the State for the past many years. There is no dispute about their eligibility for seeking release on licence and for this purpose they have been approaching the respondents from time to time. State having rejected their applications for release on licence, the decision has been challenged through various writ petitions filed in this Court. There is no dispute about their eligibility for seeking release on licence and for this purpose they have been approaching the respondents from time to time. State having rejected their applications for release on licence, the decision has been challenged through various writ petitions filed in this Court. All of them have been dismissed on the ground that under section 2 of the Probation Act, 1954, it should appear to the State Government from his antecedents and his conduct in prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if he is released on licence as in terms of Full Bench decision in Gangacharan v. State or M.P. and others ( 1994 JLJ 795 ), his antecedents and his conduct in prison are relevant factors and antecedent would not mean facts preceding the commission of crime alone, but succeeding thereto till he is confined in jail. Therefore, while considering the applications of petitioners for release on licence, the Probation Board took into consideration the nature of crime and the manner of commission. On this basis, it concluded that offence committed was planned and result of conspiracy. The opinion of Probation Board has been approved by the State. 3. Any prisoner eligible for release on probation under the Probation Rules, 1964 may make application in Form A to the Superintendent, which is supplied free of charge to him, to his relative(s) and to persons offering as his guardian. On receipt of the application, Superintendent will see whether the prisoner or his proposed guardian has duly filled the columns of the applications meant to be filed by him. In case, the application is in order, it is entered in register in Form B. In case he is not eligible under Rule 3, the application is rejected and prisoner informed of the order. Otherwise, the application is transmitted to District Magistrate of the District in which prisoner is lodged and in case it is not in order, it is returned to the prisoner for supplying necessary information. Otherwise, the application is transmitted to District Magistrate of the District in which prisoner is lodged and in case it is not in order, it is returned to the prisoner for supplying necessary information. On receipt of application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1964, the District Magistrate consults the Superintendent of Police and Probation Officer immediately and if necessary, the District Magistrate of the district in which prisoner ordinarily resides, and on receipt of their reports, fill in the entries meant to be filled in by him and without delay forwards the same to the Inspector-General of Prisoners. The District Magistrate maintains register in Form C keeping the record of all applications received from the Superintendent. The applications received from the districts by the Inspector General of Prisons are considered by the Probation Board consisting of Home Secretary, Government of M.P. in the Department of Home, or any other officer empowered in this behalf by the Government, Inspector General of Prisons Madhya Pradesh or Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, as the case may be and a non-official member to be appointed by the Government. 4. The Probation Board holds meeting ordinarily once in every month to make necessary recommendations. Chair-person of the Probation Board is the Secretary to the Government in Home Department or any other officer empowered in this behalf by the Government. Term of office of non-official member is for three years unless the State Government terminates the appointment earlier. The Government on receipt of the recommendations of the Board, passes such orders as it may deem proper. By virtue of amendment of 1989, sub-clause (7) has been inserted in Rule 6 of the Probation Rules, 1964. It provides that a prisoner, whose application for release on licence has been rejected by the Government, may again make an application in Form-A to the Superintendent after a period of two years. Such application is considered accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1964, meaning thereby, a prisoner can seek his release on licence after expiry f two years from the date his first application was rejected. 5. The fundamental question for consideration in these cases is the meaning and scope of 'his antecedents' and 'his conduct in prison. Full Bench of this Court in Gangacharan's case (supra) had occasion to consider Rule 2 of the Probation Rules, 1964. 5. The fundamental question for consideration in these cases is the meaning and scope of 'his antecedents' and 'his conduct in prison. Full Bench of this Court in Gangacharan's case (supra) had occasion to consider Rule 2 of the Probation Rules, 1964. Learned Chief Justice U.L. Bhat, speaking for the Court, said that word 'antecedents' cannot be restricted to the period prior to the commission of crime. Conduct between the date of crime and the date of his entry into prison is also relevant, apart from nature and circumstances of crime. Besides 'his conduct in prison' is also to be considered for examining his request or release on probation. The word 'antecedents' occurring in the probation Act, 1954, is as wide as can be conceived. It is worthwhile quoting certain passages from Gangacharan's case: "9. There is no logic in restricting the sweep of the word 'antecedents' to the period prior to the commission of crime, A person who commits a crime may be at large for a considerable period or he might have been in judicial custody for a considerable period. It may be that conviction takes place several years after the crime. Legislative intention could not have been to ignore as irrelevant the conduct of the prisoner between the date of the crime and the date of his entry into prison. So also, the nature and circumstances of the crime cannot be irrelevant in deciding whether a prisoner is to be released on licence. Background, setting and modus operandi of crimes could be different. A crime can be carefully pre-meditated and executed or it can be committed on the spur of the moment. A crime can be committed for strong motive. A crime may be gruesome or otherwise. It may be committed for monetary gain or for no gain. The circumstances of the crime will be helpful in throwing a flood of light on the personality of the criminal. It could not be the legislative intention to ignore the valuable clues, to his personality. The decision of the Government to release or not is dependent on its opinion whether the prisoner is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. The opinion is to be based on the consideration of his antecedents and his conduct in prison. It could not be the legislative intention to ignore the valuable clues, to his personality. The decision of the Government to release or not is dependent on its opinion whether the prisoner is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. The opinion is to be based on the consideration of his antecedents and his conduct in prison. All aspects of his antecedents preceding his entry into prison which will include antecedents prior to the crime, the circumstances of the case, conduct subsequent to crime and in prison have to be taken into consideration in the process of formation of opinion on the crucial question whether he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. No aspect by itself may be decisive. No aspect is to be ignored. The total picture and the colours which go to make up the picture are relevant. This is implied in the words used in section 2 as well as the Hindi text of the provision. Further, in paragraph 10, the learned Chief Justice said: "10. The crucial words in section 2 are 'from his antecedents and his conduct in the prison'. There was a view presented before the referring Bench that the antecedents must be confined to his life in prison. Such a view would be wholly illogical. The Legislature has not stated 'from his antecedents and conduct in the prison'. The word 'his' has been used twice, to qualify 'antecedents' as well as 'conduct in prison'. The expression 'his antecedents' by itself is capable of comprehending within its ambit 'his conduct in prison' also since 'antecedents' would mean 'antecedent to the consideration by the State Government of the prisoner's request for release'. The-Legislature evidently desired to give due importance to 'conduct in prison'. That must be the reason why words 'his conduct in prison' have been incorporated in the provision though even in the absence of such words, his conduct in prison being antecedent to the conviction, would be relevant. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act or the provision of section 2 of the Act to indicate that 'antecedents' are restricted to any period. By 'antecedents' is meant, 'antecedents before his entry into prison, whether before or after the crime which led to the conviction. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act or the provision of section 2 of the Act to indicate that 'antecedents' are restricted to any period. By 'antecedents' is meant, 'antecedents before his entry into prison, whether before or after the crime which led to the conviction. That the statute is based on the reformatory aspect of penology is no reason to hold that the expression 'antecedents' should be confined either to the period prior to the commission of the crime or to the period spent in prison." Finally, the learned Chief Justice held that: "11. We, therefore, hold that the word 'antecedents' relates to the period prior to the commission of the crime, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the period subsequent to the commission of the crime." [See also State of M.P. v. Sandeep 1996(1) MPWN 232 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 49 of 1996 decided on 18.3.19Y6), Dhansingh v. State of M.P. and another ( 1998 CrLJ 1388 ) and Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal and another ( AIR 2000 SC 2762 )]. 6. In Mehandi Hasan v. The State of U.P. and others ( 1996 CrLJ 687 ), it is said in sub-paragraphs (3), (4), (6) and (7) of paragraph 9, after considering the entire law on the point that: "(3) The formation of the opinion by the State Government as to whether or not the convict shall abstain from crime or lead peaceable life after release from prison must be based on the consideration of the ascertainable facts relating to the antecedents and conduct in prison and not on mere opinion of the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Probation Officer. (4) The antecedents will, no doubt, include the crime committed or which the concerned convict is undergoing jail sentence but that will not be sole factor, not even the most important factor. For forming an opinion against release on licence, there must normally be some more ascertainable facts besides the fact of committing the offence for which the convict is undergoing sentence. xxx xxx xxx (6) The orders passed by the State Government must contain broad reasons indicating application of mind. The order must be based on facts and not on mere opinion of the concerned authorities. xxx xxx xxx (6) The orders passed by the State Government must contain broad reasons indicating application of mind. The order must be based on facts and not on mere opinion of the concerned authorities. (7) Last but not the least, the State Government and the concerned authorities must always keep in mind the salutory object of the Probation Act and the Rules as indicated in the body of the judgment and that consideration must always guide them in the formation of the opinion." The Court in paragraphs 10 to 16, said that: "10. It is thus obvious that no State action can be sustained if it suffers from arbitrariness. The principle of reasonableness and rationality, which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, is projected by Art. 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power. Every action of the executive government must be informed with reason. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. 11. In this connection, we may also observe that in deciding the matter of premature release, the concerned authorities must always keep in mind the object behind section 2 of the Probation Act. In State of U.P. v. Sadhu Saran Shukla, 1994 SCC (Cri) 553, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: "Section 2 of the Act was enacted with a view to encourage people in prison to lead a peaceable life and to give them the opportunity of hospitality and return to the main stream of the society. The same is clear from the object and reasons of the enactment." Indeed, the object of the Probation Act is reformation of the offender. Section 2 is capable of no other meaning. It contemplates giving to the fallen man a chance of getting himself reformed and rehabilitated. The whole intention of this provision is humanitarian. It accepts the principle that the criminal law for the purpose of penology deals primarily with the individual and does not concern itself for the offence for which he is lodged in jail. It contemplates giving to the fallen man a chance of getting himself reformed and rehabilitated. The whole intention of this provision is humanitarian. It accepts the principle that the criminal law for the purpose of penology deals primarily with the individual and does not concern itself for the offence for which he is lodged in jail. We may also, at this stage, usefully extract the following observation of Supreme Court in Maru Ram's case ( 1980 CrLJ 1440 ) (supra) : 'We find the rise of enlightenment in penological alternatives to closed prisons as the current trend and failure of imprisonment as the universal layment. We hard warmingly observe experiments in open jails filled by lifers, liberal paroles and probations, generosity of juvenile justice and licensed release or freedom under leash a la. The Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938. We cannot view without gloom the reversion to the sadistic superstition that the longer a life convict is kept is a cage the surer will be his redemption. It is our considered view that beyond an optimum point of say, eight years, we mean no fixed formula prison detention benumbs and makes nervous wreck or unmitigated brute of a prisoner. If animal farms are not reformatories, the Remission Rules and short sentencing schemes are a humanising wheel of compassion and reduction of psychic tension.' 12. Considering the background, the object of the Probation Act and the observation of Supreme Court and also of this Court, the inevitable inference will be that the premature release on licence under the Probation Act and the Probation Rules should be considered rather liberally with a reformative zeal. As a corollary of this principle the concerned authorities and the State Government need not take technical view of the matter but must apply their mind keeping in view the broad objects of such premature release. As a corollary of this principle the concerned authorities and the State Government need not take technical view of the matter but must apply their mind keeping in view the broad objects of such premature release. If, for example, a person has conducted himself satisfactorily in jail and there is nothing adverse by way of tangible fact against his antecedents, apart from the offence for which he has been convicted, if he is considered to be fit enough to be sent to the model jailor to the open farms or on home leave without any adverse report against him and family members of the deceased, State has no objection to such release, it would do violence to commonsense if a report were to come from the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate that, if released, he may create law and order problem or his release on licence will not be in the interest of the habitants of the village or that, if released, he may wreck vengeance or vengeance may be wrecked against him. 13. In the present case, it is not disputed that the conduct of the petitioner in jail was satisfactory. As has been noticed by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition, Writ Petition No. 124 (HC) of 1992, the son and the wife of the deceased have filed affidavit that there was no dispute in between them and they had no objection if the petitioner is prematurely released on Form A. The Probation Officer has reported that the petitioner is likely to lead peaceable life after release and the neighbours have assured that he will do so. The Probation Officer has also reported that the proposed guardian is a man of repute and he will be in a position to control the petitioner. He has accordingly recommended premature release. In face of these facts, it is not understandable as to how the Superintendent Police, the District Magistrate or the Probation Board could give an opinion that feeling of revenge is existing in the village. By whom or against whom this feeling is existing. The son and the wife of the deceased who are the persons who could have objected to such release, have not only not objected but have clearly stated in their affidavit that they have no objection in the premature release of the petitioner. By whom or against whom this feeling is existing. The son and the wife of the deceased who are the persons who could have objected to such release, have not only not objected but have clearly stated in their affidavit that they have no objection in the premature release of the petitioner. The contrary opinion recorded by the Superintendent Police does not contain any reason for such an opinion. It does not state any fact which could lead to that Probation Board have blindly and mechanically endorsed that opinion without giving any additional facts or reasons for their opinion. The State Government has done likewise. The record placed before us does not disclose any facts which could have persuaded the State Government to reject Form A of the petitioner. In fact, what appears from the record is that the State Government did not take into consideration the relevant facts recorded in the report of the Probation Officer and also appearing from the affidavit of the son and wife of the deceased. The State Government has a clear notice of the affidavit as that fact was mentioned in the decision of the earlier writ petition of the petitioner. It is settled law that any order which materially suffers from the blemish of over-looking or ignoring wilfully or otherwise, vital facts appearing on a decision, is bad in law. See Baldeo Raj Chaddha v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 321 : ( AIR 1981 SC 70 )." 14. The opinion regarding release on licence has to be formed by the State Government. That can be done by the State Government only on a consideration of facts relevant to formation of opinion and not on the basis of mere certificate or opinion of other authorities which do not disclose facts. 15. In the present case, it is quite obvious that the State Government has based its decision on irrelevant facts i.e. on the mechanical opinion of the Superintendent Police, the District Magistrate and the Board and has not taken into consideration the relevant facts appearing in the report of the Probation Officer and the affidavit of the son and wife of the deceased. Such an order cannot be sustained. 16. No facts have been placed before this Court for coming to the conclusion that the conduct in jailor antecedents of the petitioner did not warrant his premature release. Such an order cannot be sustained. 16. No facts have been placed before this Court for coming to the conclusion that the conduct in jailor antecedents of the petitioner did not warrant his premature release. The only fact placed before the Court is that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under section 302 IPC. That, in our opinion, is not sufficient for rejection of Form A. We have already indicated above that according to the report of the Probation Officer, the petitioner was likely to lead peaceable life. His conduct in jail was satisfactory. Accordingly, there is nothing adverse to the petitioner which may come in his way of premature release." Finally, in paragraphs 17 and 18, it is said that: "17. We would have normally directed the State Government to reconsider the matter. However, we feel compelled to pass an order of premature release directly as we find that in spite of the orders passed in the earlier writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 124 (HC) of 1992 decided on 4.8.1993, the State Government has failed to consider the matter of premature release of the petitioner in the light of the relevant facts and has based its decision on irrelevant facts. There is no legal hindrance in doing so. [See: Bhagwat Saran v. State of M.P. (1983) 1 SCC 389, Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 814 of 1990 decided on 8.3.1991]. 18. We accordingly allow this writ petition. The order dated 3.12.1993 rejecting Form A of the petitioner, is hereby quashed and the State Government is directed to release the petitioner on licence under section 2 of the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 and the Rules on furnishing bond, with such conditions as the State Government may impose within seven days of the communication of this order." 7. The position emerging from the decision in Gangacharan's case (supra) is that the decision of the Government to release prisoner or not is dependent on its opinion whether the prisoner is likely to lead a peaceable life. The opinion is to be based on the consideration of his antecedents preceding his entry into prison. All aspects of his antecedents preceding his entry into prison include antecedents prior to the crime, the circumstances of the case, conduct subsequent to crime and in prison. The opinion is to be based on the consideration of his antecedents preceding his entry into prison. All aspects of his antecedents preceding his entry into prison include antecedents prior to the crime, the circumstances of the case, conduct subsequent to crime and in prison. No single aspect by itself would be decisive nor can it be ignored. Total picture and the colours which go to make up the picture are relevant. Antecedents prior to the commission of crime and following it the incarceration in jail and the conduct in prison form basis for arriving at opinion and the State Government has to apply its mind to the facts of the case. 8. Giving careful consideration to the matter, we are of considered opinion that for formation of opinion by the State Government, the antecedents of prisoner prior to the commission of crime and his conduct in prison are to be taken into consideration. Antecedents would comprise not only facts and evidence relatable to the case resulting in the commission of the crime but also conduct prior to that, meaning thereby whether the prisoner was leading a life of criminality. If so, what kind of series of crimes, nature thereof, manner of commission thereof have also to be taken into consideration while forming opinion as to 'antecedents'. In case, crime under consideration is solitary, it is a factor in his favour and in case he is leading a life of criminality, it is a factor against him. 9. So far as the crime under consideration is concerned, that is a factor but not a sole factor because for that he has already been punished after consideration how he committed it, whether it was blind, whether it is brutal, whether it is committed on notion, etc. etc. Thereafter, his conduct after commission of crime is to be taken into consideration till he is sent to prison. etc. Thereafter, his conduct after commission of crime is to be taken into consideration till he is sent to prison. While lodged in prison, his conduct in the prison is to be seen for formation of opinion whether he would abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released on probation, meaning thereby he will not repeat offence, will not revert back to the life of criminality; and in case, from material circumstances, the conclusion is that the offence is individual act of crime, not affecting the society at large, it is not against the nation, there is no chance of re-occurrence, he has lost the potentiality to commit crime because of age, his social and economic condition, the relationship with the family of victim etc. are some of the factors which are essential for formation of opinion with respect to premature release of prisoner on licence. Our understanding of Full Bench decision in Gangacharan's case (supra) is that it gives broad interpretation to 'antecedents' prior to commission of crime and cannot be confined to factors relatable to the crime under consideration. The scope is broad and comprehensive. They take into consideration the total personality of the prisoner as stated above. 10. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, we advert to these appeals. At the cost of repetition, the offences against prisoners are under sections 302/307/394/304B/498A/325/323 etc. Indian Penal Code. They are lodged in jail, serving their respective sentences. They are qualified for applying for release on licence under the Probation Act 1954. In all the cases, the Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate and Probation Officers have recommended the cases of petitioners/ appellants for release of licence. In LPA No. 255 of 2001 (Anil Kumar v. State of M.P.), LPA No. 284 of 2001 (Ram Raj v. State of M.P.), LPA No. 304 of 2002 (Manohar v. State of M.P.), LPA No.6 of 2002 (Ramesh Kumar v. State of M.P.), LPA No. 12 of 2002 (Manohar and others v. State of M.P.), LPA No. 59 of 2002 (Hari alias Harish Chand v. State of M.P.), LPA No. 122 of 2002 (Cheese Lal v. State of M.P.), LPA No. 128 of 2002 (Raj Kumar v. State of M.P.) and L.P.A. No. 137 of 2002 (Rajesh and others v. State of M.P.), the non-official member has also recommended their release on probation. In none of the cases, the relations of victims have objected their release on probation. Rather, in some of the cases, namely, LPA No. 224 of 2001 (Shambhu Prasad alias Chhota v. State of M.P.), Smt. Sonia (wife of deceased), Shri Ramanuj (son of deceased) and Shri Brajwasi (brother of deceased) speak for his release on probation and Bhagwandin, co-accused has since been released on probation by the State Government. Similarly, Shyamlal, co-accused in LPA No. 255 of 2001 (Anil Kumar v. State of M.P.) because of whom the quarrel started, has also been released on probation. In LPA No. 237 of 2001 (Makhhan v. State of M.P.), son of deceased has not objected to the release of prisoner on probation by furnishing document executed in presence of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Batori. In all these cases, there is no evidence of involvement of any of the accused in any other crime or of leading life of criminality prior to the commission of the crime involved in these appeals. There is no evidence suggesting extreme brutality commission of the crimes which have been committed in routine manner, nor there is evidence of bad antecedents after commission and lodgement in prison. There is no whisper from any person, relation or witness suggesting or indicating repetition of crime by the prisoner, causing of violence, propensity to commit breach of peace, nor the abnormality of crime is such which is likely to affect the society. 11. Perusal of Form A demonstrates that District Magistrate has been assigned significant role in matters of prisoners' release on probation. Item 4 of Form A pertaining to District Magistrate reads as under: "4. Having regard to the prisoner's antecedents and his conduct in prison, is he likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life if released on licence? ...... District Magistrate Name of District." With regard to Probation Board, Items 4 and 5 are recommendations. Item 4 says : 'Recommended for release on licence after ........ months if prisoner's conduct is satisfactory.' Items 5 reads thus : "Postponed till ..... if prisoner's conduct satisfactory." Form A further provides for orders of Government. Board recommendation is accepted. Perusal of Form A shows that District Magistrate forms opinion in consultation with Superintendent of Police and Probation Officer. Item 4 says : 'Recommended for release on licence after ........ months if prisoner's conduct is satisfactory.' Items 5 reads thus : "Postponed till ..... if prisoner's conduct satisfactory." Form A further provides for orders of Government. Board recommendation is accepted. Perusal of Form A shows that District Magistrate forms opinion in consultation with Superintendent of Police and Probation Officer. Being executive head of District, he is expected to gather the antecedents of prisoner since the latter is convicted in his district or from the District, prisoner ordinarily resides along with inputs and opinions of Superintendent of Police and Probation Officer. With this background, the matter is to be considered by the Probation Board which comprises of Home Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Home, Inspector-General of Prisons and non-official member. The Board forms opinion on the basis of material placed before it, since there is no provision for collection of information by some other means. Finally, the State Government passes orders as it deems proper. 12. The functions assigned to authorities under Rule 6 of the Probation Rules, 1964 are of fundamental nature. They are expected to consider the cases carefully to eliminate allegations of non-application of mind, arbitrariness and casualness. Perusal of recommendations by Probation Board demonstrates that they refer to the facts of the case, which are also not mentioned properly, accurately and relevantly. For instance, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 2001 (Subrato Bachaspati v. State of M.P. and others), Documents 3 to 11 have not been examined in the context of his antecedents, preceding the commission of crime and appeal pending in this Court. Therefore, only one circumstance has been taken into consideration instead of totahty of the circumstances for formation of opinion against the prisoner. It did not consider the reports of District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Probation Officers, relations, Panchayats supporting the case(s) for release on probation. It ought to have recorded reasons why reports submitted by these officers were not acceptable to it. Further, the State Government has simply accepted the recommendations without recording reasons, why it accepted the recommendations of the Probation Board and rejected those of District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Probation Officers. It ought to have recorded reasons why reports submitted by these officers were not acceptable to it. Further, the State Government has simply accepted the recommendations without recording reasons, why it accepted the recommendations of the Probation Board and rejected those of District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Probation Officers. Therefore, allegation of non-application of mind, arbitrariness, casualness clearly afflict the order accepting Board's recommendations which are also not in consonance with legal frame pointed out in the preceding part of the judgment. 13. Shri D.D. Bhargava, learned counsel for petitioner/appellants also submits that approach of Probation Board has not been fair and consistent in dealing with some cases. It is thoroughly whimsical and selective. In some cases, for same reasons, prisoners are released on probation, while in similar cases, their applications are rejected without specifying reasons therefor. Co-accused Bhagwandeen in LPA No. 224 of 2001 (Shambhu Prasad alias Chhota v. State of M.P.) has been released on probation, while application of petitioner/appellant has been rejected. Similarly, co-accused Shyamlal in LPA No. 255 of 2001 (Anil Kumar v. State of M.P.) has been released on probation, while the application of the petitioner/appellant has been rejected. In the case LPA No. 128 of 2002 (Raj Kumar v. State of M.P.), co-accused Sawal Singh has been released on probation, while other two have been denied the relief. Further in Criminal Reference No.2 of 1993 (State of M.P. v. Vishal Singh and another), accused, who was awarded death sentence by trial Court and converted to life by this Court, has been recommended for release on probation by the Probation Board and released on probation by the State Government being involved in the commission of five murders. Therefore, it is found that the approach of authorities has not been consistent and reports, opinions and orders are neither in tune with law nor the spirit thereof, resulting in challenges before the Courts on one ground or the other. These cases have not been considered by the Board and the State in a proper and judicious manner. All relevant factors were not taken into consideration before their prayer for release on probation was rejected. These cases have not been considered by the Board and the State in a proper and judicious manner. All relevant factors were not taken into consideration before their prayer for release on probation was rejected. It is not understandable why reports of District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Probation Officers, relations of victim(s) and Panchayat(s) were not taken into consideration for formation of opinion which is singularly based on facts of the case for which the prisoners were charged and punished. Decisions of this Court rendered from time to time have not been considered for formation of opinion. The State Government failed to apply its mind and accepted the recommendations of the Probation Board in a casual and mechanical manner, thereby failing to discharge the highest responsibility which the law envisages. Therefore, irresistible conclusion, which emerges, is that the impugned judgments are set aside; the recommendations of Probations Board and orders of State Government passed thereon are also set aside. 14. Now question arises, whether the cases should be remanded to the State Government for fresh consideration in light of what has been stated in this judgment. We think, such a course should not be adopted in these cases since it is bound to delay the matters, thereby cause further injustice to the petitioners (prisoners). We, therefore, direct the respondents to release the petitioners (appellants) on licence within fifteen days {See: Mehandi Hasan v. State of U.P. and others ( 1996 CrLJ 687 ) and Bhagwat Saran v. State of U.P. [(1983) 1 SCC 389]}.