Crl.W.P. No.776 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.W.P. No.776 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JUNE 29, 2010 Ravi Kant Tayagi .....PETITIONER Versus State of UT Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA --- Present: Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Sharma, Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/397/460/120-B IPC and undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in Model Jail, Chandigarh, has filed the instant petition for issuing directions to the respondents to release the petitioner on four weeks parole under Section 3 (1)(d) of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), as applicable to Chandigarh, to meet his family members. It has been alleged that the petitioner is inside the jail since 12.2.2006 and has not availed any parole till date. It has been stated that the conduct of the petitioner inside the jail has been good and he has not committed any jail offence during his custody period. Crl.W.P. No.776 of 2010 (O&M) -2- In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has been stated that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for the murder of three persons, out of whom, the parents of one Pawandeep Singh and bua of said Pawandeep Singh were the victims. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was a hired killer belonging to Uttar Pradesh. It has been further averred in the reply that the petitioner had earlier moved an application for grant of parole and the same was rejected by the Inspector General of Prisons, U.T., Chandigarh vide order dated 19.8.2009 on the basis of the detailed report submitted by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur. The District Magistrate, Saharanpur did not recommend for the release of the petitioner on parole on the ground that in case he is released on parole, an untoward incident could happen in the village which may affect the peaceful atmosphere of the village. Copy of the said rejection order has been annexed as Annexure R-2 with the reply. Further, in the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent, Model Jail, Chandigarh, it has been stated that the petitioner is a hired and ruthless killer and, therefore, his prayer for grant of parole has been rightly rejected by the competent authority. It has been further stated that in this case Pawandeep Singh by hiring the petitioner got murdered his father, mother and bua and, hence, his case is not liable to be considered under the Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is having a good case for being released on parole as his conduct during custody in the jail has been good throughout and he has not committed any jail offence during the said period. He has cited the judgment of this Court in Subash v. State of Haryana and another, 2004(2) R.C.R. (Crl.) 491, Crl.W.P. No.776 of 2010 (O&M) -3- wherein the convict, who was undergoing sentence in dowry death case, was granted parole by this Court for house repairs for a period of four weeks. After hearing the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this petition. In this case, the petitioner has committed a heinous crime by murdering three persons, out of whom, two were women. In our opinion, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole for four weeks to meet his family members cannot be considered, keeping in view his past conduct and the fact that it is always open to the family members of the petitioner to meet him in jail. In our opinion, as per the police report, the petitioner is not keeping good reputation in the village and in case he is released on parole, he may again commit any serious crime. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In Subash's case (supra), it was held by this Court that parole cannot be declined to a convict who is undergoing the imprisonment in a case of social evil (dowry death). The present case is entirely different. In this case, the petitioner is a hired criminal and has committed the more heinous crime by murdering three persons. Thus, in our opinion, the case of the petitioner for grant of parole has been rightly rejected by the competent authority. We do not find any ground to interfere in the said order. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE June 29, 2010 ( H.S. BHALLA ) vkg JUDGE