Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the furlough petition, noting the co-convict’s absconding and the petitioner’s serious criminal record.
The High Court Bench observed that under the Delhi Prison Rules, particularly Rule 1223, eligibility for furlough requires the prisoner not to be a habitual offender. Further, Rule 1224 excludes prisoners involved in serious crimes or violence from furlough. Given these factors and the gravity of the petitioner’s offences, the court rejected the petition.
Brief Fact :
The petitioner, through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenged the denial of furlough. He was convicted and initially sentenced to death by the trial court on 22.08.2018 in FIR no. 69/2009 under Sections 302, 364, 201, 394, 468, 471 and 482 of the IPC, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at P.S. Vasant Vihar. The High Court later commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on appeal. Additionally, the petitioner is serving another life sentence under Section 302 IPC in a separate case, with the appeal still pending. The state has challenged the suspension of this sentence in the Supreme Court.
The petitioner applied for furlough under the Jail Rules, but his request was denied by the Competent Authority on 20.05.2024. The denial was based on the fact that the petitioner, having been convicted of two separate offences under Section 302 IPC, is considered a habitual offender. This decision was made in accordance with Rule 1223(ii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 which disqualifies habitual offenders from being granted furlough.
Contention of Petitioner :
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Competent Authority wrongfully denied his application for furlough, despite being eligible. The initial request for parole was denied on 28.02.2024, but the petitioner is eligible for furlough, as indicated in the relevant records. The denial of furlough was based solely on his convictions in two separate cases under Section 302 IPC, without considering the Social Welfare Report or Recommendation.
The counsel asserts that under Rule 1225 (ii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, even though the petitioner has multiple murder convictions, he remains eligible for furlough. The Competent Authority is said to have disregarded the Social Welfare Report and Recommendation, which support the petitioner’s case. The Social Investigation Report and Nomial Roll dated 14.03.2024 show that the petitioner has served over 16 years, including under-trial and remission periods, and his conduct has been satisfactory. Counsel further contended that the denial based solely on the habitual offender status, without considering these factors, is improper.
Contention of Respondent :
The counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition highlighting that the petitioner is involved in over 20 cases, with convictions in seven, contrary to claims of only two convictions. The Supreme Court has previously overturned a parole grant, and the High Court dismissed related writ petitions for improper conduct and lack of grounds. The respondent cites a 2024 order denying parole due to the petitioner’s extensive criminal record, including recent convictions for murder and robbery. Emphasising the petitioner’s habitual offender status and severe crimes, the State argues that he fails to meet the criteria for furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Despite the petitioner’s claims of favourable decisions for co-convicts, the respondent contends that the petitioner’s extensive criminal history and risk of re-offending disqualify him from furlough.
Observation of the Court:
The Court reviewed the relevant Delhi Prison Rules concerning furlough eligibility. According to Rule 1220, prisoners sentenced to 5 or more years must serve 3 years with an unblemished record to qualify for furlough. Rule 1223 stipulates that eligibility requires good conduct, non-habitual offender status, and Indian citizenship. Rule 1224 outlines that furlough is not granted to prisoners convicted of serious crimes, including sedition or terrorism, or those considered dangerous or involved in serious prison violence.
Further, the court noted that Rule 1225 sets specific conditions for prisoners convicted of severe offences, such as multiple murders or dacoity with murder, requiring recommendations from the Deputy Inspector General and consideration of Social welfare reports. The court highlights, “The public interest needs to be counter-balanced and the prisoners who reflect a propensity to commit offences or may pose a potential threat to law and order of society may not be released on furlough”.The court emphasized that the petitioner must meet these criteria, particularly not being a habitual offender, and noted that simultaneous furloughs for co-accused are generally not permitted except in exceptional circumstances.
The decision of the Court:
The Court decided to dismiss the petition, noting that the co-convict granted parole had absconded and considering the petitioner’s record and the seriousness of the offences, the court concluded that the petitioner was a habitual offender and as such the petition was rejected.
Title: MR. X vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 1937/2024 & CRL.M.A. 24257/2024
Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Alok Tripathi and Shubham
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Yasir Rauf Ansari (ASC Crl.), Alok Sharma and Vasu Agarwal