Khalra case: Court stays orders on former DSP’s parole

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 3

Just over six months after the state government was directed to release on parole ex-DSP Jaspal Singh pending review of order rejecting his plea for premature release in a case regarding the abduction and disappearance of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed the operation of the order.

The direction by the Bench of Chief Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Arun Palli came on a petition filed by Paramjit Kaur Khalra through counsel Rajvinder Singh Bains. The Bench also fixed September 17 as the next date of hearing in the matter.

Jaspal Singh was convicted for murder and other offences under Sections 120-B, 364, 302, 34 and 201 of the IPC before being awarded life sentence in November 2005 by Patiala Additional Sessions Judge on the abduction and disappearance of Khalra, general-secretary of Shiromani Akali Dal’s human rights wing. The case was investigated by the CBI.

He had moved the Single Judge for setting aside impugned order dated October 9, 2017, passed by the state government whereby his case for premature release was kept pending on the ground that investigation was done by a Central agency and the consent of the Union of India was necessary before granting remission to the convict.

His case for premature release was declined vide order dated August 30, 2018, on the ground that the Centre had not recommended his case for early release. Taking up the plea, the Single Judge had quashed the order passed by the Punjab Governor and the state government was directed to again initiate the process and consider his case for premature release after consultation, and not consent with the Central government. After considering the entirety of the circumstances, it was asked to pass the fresh order.

The Judge had added if the order was not passed within four weeks, the state would temporarily release the petitioner on parole. Bains contended the facts do not justify constitutional mercy for a police officer who abused his power to kill a citizen simply advocating rights of victim. The victim, a well-known human rights activist, was only collecting information on the fate of the abducted persons.