Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for his release on probation under the provisions of M. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 read with M. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964. ( 2. ) ALTHOUGH, concerned District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and Jail Superintendent have recommended the case of petitioner for his release on probation in terms of Rules applicable, the Board by impugned order dated 2342-2002 (Annexure P-1) rejected the prayer of petitioner essentially or rather only on the ground that the nature in which the offence was committed by the petitioner does not entitle him to seek his release on probation. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is in writ. ( 3. ) HEARD Smt. Sonali Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. Verma, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P. R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through with the record of the case, I find substance in the writ and hence, it deserves to be allowed resulting in quashing of order dated 23-12-2002 (An nexure P-1 ). ( 5. ) AS noted supra, the only ground on which the petitioners prayer was rejected by the Board is his role in which, he participated in crime which resulted in his conviction. As also taken note for all other authorities, i. e. , D. M. Ratlam and Welfare Office, Ujjain and Superintendent Jail have made recommendations in favour of petitioner for release him on probation. In my opinion though to some extent, the involvement of petitioner in crime may be relevant while looking his antecedent as contemplated in Section 2 of M. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 but that by itself should not be made as the sole ground to refuse the prayer. It is much more so when all other conditions contemplated in Section 2 read with Rules are fully satisfied by the petitioner. That apart, even while considering the antecedents of petitioner no other incident was taken into account except the incident of crime in which he was convicted. ( 6. ) TAKING into consideration aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation. As a result, petition succeeds and is allowed. That apart, even while considering the antecedents of petitioner no other incident was taken into account except the incident of crime in which he was convicted. ( 6. ) TAKING into consideration aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be released on probation. As a result, petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 23-12-2002 (Annexure P-l) is set aside. The petitioner be released on probation by the respondents after ensuring full compliance of rules for a period prescribed for release of any prisoner on probation. Let formalities to that effect be done within one month. State Counsel to send copy of order to respondents for ensuring compliance. C. C. within three days.