Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER in this writ petition is assailing the order (P-l) passed by the state Govt. on recommendation of Probation Board refusing to release petitioner on licence. ( 2. ) THE State Govt. has passed the order on the basis of the recommendations made by the State Probation Board. In the impugned order, consideration has been made of all relevant consideration. Petitioner was armed with gun in the offence in question and had used it owing to which ramratan died and two others Premabai and Santosh suffered injuries. Petitioner, who is a life convict, has undergone only 7 years of the actual sentence and during this period his conduct in the jail has also been taken into consideration. Petitioner was found involved in an incident of beating, abusing, co-prisoners and incited other prisoners against the jail administration. Not only this, the complainant and the family members of the deceased have opposed the release of the petitioner on probation and pointed out that the petitioner has threatened them with life. The nature of offence, conduct in jail and antecedents etc. of the petitioner have been duly taken into consideration while rejecting the case. ( 3. ) COUNSEL for petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Full bench of this Court in Ganga Charan Vs. State of M. P. and others, 1994 JLJ 795 . Para 5 is quoted below:- "5. We may also advert to the relevant provisions of the prisoners Act, 1900 and the Madhya Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1968. Section 31-B deals with release of prisoners on parole. In deciding whether prisoner is to be released, his conduct in prison is to be considered. Section 31-C deals with powers to release the prisoner for special reasons. Here also, his conduct in prison is to be considered. Rule 358 deals with release of prisoners under 14 years rule. This rule requires consideration of "full information regarding the character of his crime, his conduct in prison and the probability of his reverting after release to criminal habits or instigating others to commit crime". Rule 358 dealing with final or permanent release requires consideration of wider range of aspects while Section 31-B and 31-C deal with temporary release and require consideration of only the prisoners conduct in prison. " ( 4. Rule 358 dealing with final or permanent release requires consideration of wider range of aspects while Section 31-B and 31-C deal with temporary release and require consideration of only the prisoners conduct in prison. " ( 4. ) FULL Bench of this Court in Ganga Charan (supra) has laid down that wider range of aspects should be taken into consideration. Counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner was released on parol while releasing him, his conduct was obviously seen in the prison, thus, the impugned order is bad in law. In my opinion, over all effect of all the material facts has to be taken into consideration as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in isolation one of the aspect is not enough wider range of aspects are to be considered and cumulative effect of all is required to be considered. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner has also relied on decision of this court in Sudesh Vyas Vs. Principal Secretary, State of M. P. and others, rendered in W. P. No. 873/2001, Bench at Indore decided on 24-8-2001 in which the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Superintendent of Police only on the ground that petitioner was released on parole and did not cause any incident. What were the other factors in Sudesh Vyass case are not reflected from the order; as per Gangaram (supra) consideration of wider range is required. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in Mehandi Hasan Vs. State of U. P. , 1996 Cr. LJ 687 in which it has been observed that factum of release on parole is one of consideration. The case is distinguishable inasmuch as petitioners conduct in jail in Mehandi Hasan (supra) was certified to be satisfactory. In said decision in fact no foundation was laid to substantiate the allegation of the District Magistrate that the petitioner can commit offence again if released on licence. Their Lordships in Mehandi Hasans case held that consideration of one fact is not enough and even award of some punishment in jail is by itself not enough in addition to every fact has to be taken into consideration. ( 6. Their Lordships in Mehandi Hasans case held that consideration of one fact is not enough and even award of some punishment in jail is by itself not enough in addition to every fact has to be taken into consideration. ( 6. ) IN the instant case, if overall view of the facts noted in the rejection order are taken into consideration, it is clear that petitioner has used the gun which caused the death of Ramratan Singh and injuries to Premabai and Santosh. He is a life convict and has undergone only 7 years and his conduct in jail has not been found to satisfactory. He was involved in beating incidents in jail. Family members of the deceased have opposed the release on licence. Antecedents have been considered. I find that the cumulative effect of relevant considerations have been taken into account. The order is proper and calls for no interference in the writ petition. ( 7. ) WRIT petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.