IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-23393 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 18, 2008 Shamsher Singh … Petitioner Versus U.T. Administration and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Navkrian Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Manjari Nehru, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.4. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioner, a lifer in case FIR No. RC-9(S) 1995/SIU/SIV/CBI, New Delhi, under Sections 302/307/306 read with 109/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, initially filed a Criminal Misc. No. M- 12382 of 2008 which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.05.2008 with a direction to the Competent Authority to take a decision on the parole plea of the petitioner with a period of two months. Crl. Misc. No. M-23393 of 2008 In compliance with that order, the Competent Authority considered the parole plea of the petitioner – prisoner and declined it vide order dated 11.08.2008. The petitioner – prisoner has applied for the invalidation of that order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the file. Before proceeding to undertake the adjudicatory exercise in the context, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder the impugned order itself, the invalidation whereof has been applied for by the petitioner:- “The District Magistrate, Patiala, has not recommended for the release of convict Shamsher Singh on parole on plea that the statements of some well know persons in the village has been recorded who submitted that convict Shamsher Singh was involved in the assassination of Lt. Sh. Beant Singh, Ex-Chief Minister, Punjab. He is one of the partner of dangerous terrorist Jagtar Singh Hawara, Paramjit Singh Bheora and Balwant Singh. Jagtar Singh Hawara and Paramjit Singh Bheora are also involved are in the Jail Break case. If he is released on parole he may again join any terrorist group during the parole. Convict Shamsher may be released only on the day of his daughter’s marriage with full police Escort. The parole case of the 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-23393 of 2008 convict is thus rejected. He may be informed accordingly.” Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, is present in Court along with record including certain papers which has been shown to the Court (in open Court). The grievance of the petitioner – prisoner is that the declining of a parole plea is not only violative of the purpose of the relevant peace of legislation but it also disables the prisoner from having continued relatability to the society which he has to join on completion of the jail term. In that context, it is argued that the petitioner – prisoner has undergone incarceration for more than a decade and he has not committed any jail offence through out that period. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for his release on parole on two counts i.e. to be able to cultivate his land and also to be able to take steps for solemnization of marriage of his daughter. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents resists the plea by arguing that the release, on parole, of the petitioner – prisoner would be detrimental to national interest in view of the fact that he is undergoing life imprisonment on a charge of having murdered the then Chief Minister of the State. The argument is that the petitioner – prisoner is a man of great criminal potential and member of a hardcore gang which could penetrate the apparently impregnable security of the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab and kill him in a bomb-blast. The petitioner, argument proceeds, is also a close associate of those 3 Crl. Misc. No. M-23393 of 2008 convicted along with him in Beant Singh’s assassination case and who (associates) were also alleged to have participated in the jail break case. It is pointed out that though the petitioner was not independently prosecuted on a charge of having been privy to the jail break, the information available is that he was indeed a party to it. It is pointed out that the State refrained from launching a prosecution in the relevant behalf because none would have supported the prosecution at the trial. The District Magistrate, Patiala, has also shown to the Court certain (confidential) papers indicating Intelligence reports indicating the criminal nuisance potential of the petitioner. 1. Insofar as the request for being released on parole for taking steps to find out, match for his daughter is concerned, the State plea is that if accepted, it would enable the petitioner- prisoner to unrestricted distance and the period requirement therefor also cannot be quantified. It is pointed out that the competent authority has otherwise assured that the petitioner- prisoner could be escorted on the date of marriage to enable him to perform his customary duty. 2. It is further argues that the plea for release is being resisted in the light of the overall security scenario in the country. 3. Qua the plea for agriculture parole, it is argued that the ascertained agricultural holding in the name of the petitioner is too meager and the petitioner cannot be heard to argue that he needs to cultivate that land for the economic sustenance of his family. 4 Crl. Misc. No. M-23393 of 2008 By the very nature of things, a prisoner cannot claim parole as a right. The Competent Authority under the relevant Act takes up the cases of prisoners for release on parole and obtains, before had a report from the District Magistrate concerned. In this case, the report furnished by the District Magistrate, Patiala, (a place to which the petitioner – prisoner belongs) is adverse in character and the Competent Authority acted on the basis of that report only. The District Magistrate further reported that he would recommend the escorted visit of the petitioner on the date his daughter’s marriage is to be solemnized. The District Magistrate further indicated that there is only six bighas of agricultural holding in the name of the petitioner – prisoner. The following facts can, thus, be safely culled out from the record and above discussion:- 1. The petitioner-prisoner is undergoing life imprisonment following his conviction on a charge of having murdered a former Chief Minister, Punjab who was the holder of office at that point of time. 2. The petitioner is an associate of certain others who were convicted along with him in the Beant Singh assassination case and are accused in the jail break case. 3. The competent authority has reasons to believe that the petitioner, if released on parole, could constitute a danger to the public peace. 5 Crl. Misc. No. M-23393 of 2008 4. The agricultural holding in the name of the petitioner is too meager to enable him to raise a plea that he would be thereby able to provide funds for the economic sustenance of his family. This Court has no hesitation in agreeing with the view obtained by the authority in declining to release the petitioner- prisoner on parole. Dismissed. December 18, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) Pka Judge 6