TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Punjab and Haryana HC reserves verdict on petition challenging Dera chief’s release on furlough

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, February 25

Advertisement

Justice Raj Mohan Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday reserved verdict on a petition challenging Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh’s release on furlough after hearing lengthy arguments in the matter.

Among other things, the petitioner had contended that Ram Rahim was released in view of the Assembly elections in Punjab.”His release at this stage is against the spirit of fair assembly elections,” petitioner Paramjit Singh Saholi had submitted. His counsel had added Ram Rahim, who committed “heinous crimes and has been convicted” ought not to have been granted furlough.

“There is no justified reason to grant furlough to an individual like Ram Rahim and that too during the election days in the State of Punjab. There is every likelihood that Ram Rahim will foment issues/troubles in the State of Punjab and adversely impact its local populace along with his supporters,” he had added.

Advertisement

The State of Haryana, on the other hand, had defended its move to release Ram Rahim on furlough after submitting that he was not a “hardcore prisoner”.

In his reply placed before the High Court, the Superintendent of Rohtak District Jail submitted that “the respondent does not fall in any of the categories of hardcore prisoners and all the assertions made by the petitioner in this regard are incorrect and without any basis”. It was added in case the respondent was considered “hardcore prisoner” even then he was entitled to temporary release as he had undergone more than five years of sentence as a convict in jail.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement