Trial court must record reasons for denying probation under 361 CrPC- Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, has emphasised that the requirement under Section 361 CrPC is mandatory and that the trial court should record its justifications in writing as to why it would not be prudent to grant the benefit of probation to a convict who is otherwise eligible for it.

Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal was a member of the court's panel that made the following observation: Section 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code's requirements must be followed, and if the trial court determines that a release on probation order is not prudent, it must state its reasoning. Additionally, this benefit may be granted by the appellate court or the High Court when exercising its revisionary authority in accordance with Section 360(4) of the Cr.P.C.

According to the case's facts, the petitioner was found guilty of the offence covered by section 498-A of the IPC. The trial court declined to give him the benefit even though he was qualified for release on probation. The petitioner sought the High Court out of resentment.

According to the petitioner, the lower court was required by the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant him the benefit. Further, it was argued that the court below was required under Section 361 CrPC to record the reasons it did not extend the benefit of probation, but this was not done.

The Court agreed with the petitioner's claims after considering the parties' submissions and the materials submitted for review. It was stated that the petitioner should have been granted probation by the trial court because the offence in this case arose out of a domestic disagreement and the petitioner is accused of harassing his wife for not paying the dowry demanded of him. The petitioner, who was 23 years old when the offence was committed, has had this case on hold since 2007. In addition to the charge sheet, the prosecution has not provided any evidence that the petitioner has a criminal history or has a bad character. There is no proof that the petitioner committed any crimes during this time. Given the foregoing, this Court believes that the petitioner should have been granted the benefit of probation, which neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court have done.

In light of the aforementioned considerations, the Court decided that the petitioner should be released on one-year of good character probation upon submission of a personal bond to the trial court. The petition was therefore approved.

MAHESH VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH