20 years on, murder convict behind bars gets no relief

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 23

For Subeg Singh, it’s life behind bars — at least for the time being. After undergoing an actual sentence of 20 years in a murder case, the convict will continue to be lodged in jail, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing his plea for premature release. His name had also surfaced in the Burail jailbreak case in January 2004, but was acquitted in the matter.

The Patiala District Magistrate had earlier submitted a report stating that the petitioner was a habitual criminal and actively involved in terrorist activities during the times of terrorism. It was added that the petitioner, if released, might, in association with his old friends, indulge again in terrorist activities, which might lead to some untoward incident hampering peace in the state.

In his petition against the Union Territory of Chandigarh and other respondents, the petitioner was seeking the quashing of orders, whereby his case for premature release was rejected. The Bench was told the petitioner stood convicted vide a judgment dated May 18, 1999, passed by UT Sessions Judge for committing murder and other offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 392 and 380 of the IPC.

His plea was considered by the Chandigarh Administration for premature release, but was declined in July 2015. Among other things, it was noticed that the petitioner was involved in jailbreak even while in custody; he was caught with intoxicant powder while surrendering at the jail gate after parole and the Inspector-General of Prisons had sought a report from the Patiala District Magistrate, which turned out to be adverse. 

The petitioner challenged the order. However, during the pendency of the plea, his case was again considered for premature release and rejected. 

Challenging the order, his counsel submitted that the petitioner till date had undergone a sentence of more than 28 years, which included remissions of seven and a half years. 

In any case, he had undergone actual sentence of 20 years. As such, he was fully covered by the policy on premature release of convicts. Referring to the jailbreak case and the recovery of contraband, he added the petitioner already stood acquitted and that no other trial was pending against the accused.

The state counsel, on the other hand, submitted that a convict could not claim premature release as of right. It was the discretion to be exercised by the government. 

“In the present case, since it had specifically been reported that nobody from the petitioner’s side came forward to vouch for his good behaviour and were, rather, apprehensive about breach of peace, the state government’s decision in rejecting his claim at the stage could not be found fault with. However, the order was not to be treated as a bar for consideration of the petitioner’s case in future,” Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill asserted.