Crl. Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 14.7.2011 Anil Tyagi .....Petitioner Versus U.T. Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Ajay Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a life convict and undergoing his sentence in Central Jail, Patiala, for directing the respondents to grant him parole under Section 3(1)(c) of Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, for a period of four weeks to meet his old and ailing parents after two years of rejection of his prayer. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the petition as well as the order dated 10.12.2009 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for his release on parole has been declined as the District Magistrate Saharanpur has not recommended his case on the ground that if the petitioner is released on parole, he will be danger to the security of society. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a peaceful and law abiding citizen and that except the case in which he has Crl. Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2011 2 been sentenced there is no other criminal case pending against him. During the course of hearing we have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against which the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 415-DB of 2009. In this case the petitioner along with other accused have been convicted for lurking house tress and committed murder of three persons including two ladies. As per the prosecution the petitioner was one of the hired killer. After hearing the learned counsel and keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents were justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his release on parole on the above ground. We do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 14.7.2011 ( A.N. JINDAL ) reema JUDGE