JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for private respondent No.5 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner Prakashvati Singh wife of Late Karan Singh has filed this petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 15.03.2017 passed by State Government, placed on record as Annexure-1.

The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing official respondents to arrest respondent No.5 (Jaini Singh) prisoner No.534 of 2011 convicted in Sessions Trial No.983 of 1995, under Sections 302, 149, 147, 148 I.P.C. vide judgment dated 02.12.2012 rendered by Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order and judgment dated 02.12.2011, the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar has convicted the respondent No.5 (Jaini Singh) and five others, under Sections 302/149, 147, 148 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.983 of 1995 for life imprisonment on the charge of killing of three persons. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the appeal No.7008 of 2011 was filed in which the bail application of respondent No.5 was rejected twice as on vide order dated 10.07.2012 and 03.03.2014 and the appeal is still pending for final disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 moved an application in the form of mercy petition, dated 17.10.2016 for premature release and report was sought on his application from the Senior Superintendent of Police and District Probation Officer, Bulandshahar and they submitted their report dated 13.06.2016 and 23.09.2016 respectively and recommended to reject the mercy petition of the respondent No.5 and Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar in his report has categorically mentioned that if the respondent No.5 was to be released, he could act as motivator for future crimes. He further submitted that a report was also asked from the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar as well as Authority of the District Jail, Bulandshahar, the District Magistrate in his report, has given approval to consider the mercy petition of the respondent No.5 without giving any reason. As per the Notification No.V-17013/2/2013-PR, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (CS Division), dated 01.02.2013 which clearly provides that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishment, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at-least fourteen years of imprisonment. Ignoring the directions of aforesaid circular, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar recommended for consideration of the mercy petition of respondent No.5, though he had served only a period of five years of imprisonment for life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maru Ram Vs. Union of India & others reported in (1981) 1 SCC 107, Satpal and another Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2000) 5 SCC 170, Epuru Sudhakar Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2006) 8 SCC 161.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the release of respondent no.5 is in total violation of provisions of Sections 432, 433 and 433A of the Cr.P.C. The provisions are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

"432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.

(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without Conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government