ASHOK KUMAR  [Petitioner] Vs.  STATE OF NCT OF DELHI  [ Respondent]

W.P.(CRL) 3063/2023

(CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA)

Facts: The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari passed by the respondent, and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks

Issue: Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in the facts of this case?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:

The petitioner has preferred this petition, and the learned counsel appearing on his behalf argues that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration of about 10 years, and he has earned three annual good conduct report, thereby being fully entitled to grant of furlough as per Delhi Prison Rules. It is stated that the rejection of the furlough has frustrated the whole purpose of the reformation of the convict as it would further frustrate him instead of his rehabilitation. It is also stated that the rejection order has been passed without application of mind, and in a routine manner. It is stated that the petitioner is working in the jail canteen and prays that he be released on furlough for three weeks to maintain social ties. It is also argued that the petitioner was released on emergency parole by the concerned authorities on two occasions and after availing the same, he had surrendered before the jail authorities without misusing the liberty granted to him in any manner.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposes the present petition and argues that since petitioner is involved in commission of a heinous offence, he should not be granted furlough. However, he states that the address of the petitioner, of District Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, has been verified.

Held: The court disposed off the present petition and held that, “The rules of furlough and parole have been incorporated in the Prison Manual itself for the convicts only, and it is not the case that furlough and parole can be granted only to those who will be guilty of simple offences or not very serious or heinous offences. Barring some rules, the criteria for reformation is same for all convicts. The stress undergone by a convict due to his long incarceration cannot be overlooked and should be appreciated by the concerned authorities while passing such rejection orders, in the face of satisfactory jail conduct of the convict for last 10 years, a report of not misusing the liberty of emergency parole granted to him, which clearly reflect that he is trying to reform himself and is trying his best to be a useful member of the community, including his act of sending money regularly to his family for their up keep, as mentioned in the petition.”