Back
Opens Door for Co-Accused Parole: No Blanket Ban, Just Smarter Scrutiny
In a ruling that balances prisoner rehabilitation with public safety, the has clarified that prison rules do not impose an absolute prohibition on granting parole or furlough to co-accused persons at the same time. A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja delivered this nuanced verdict on April 29, 2026, in petitions filed by convicts Sandeep @ Sandy and Vijay Dahiya, who were denied furlough solely because their co-convicts were already out.
The decision underscores the reformative purpose of such releases, rooted in 's right to life and dignity, while cautioning authorities to apply stricter checks to prevent risks like renewed criminal collusion.
From Murder Conviction to Furlough Frustration
The petitioners were among six convicted in a 2016 murder case (FIR No. 862/2016, ) under . Trial court judgments from February 2018 led to life sentences, later modified by the High Court in June 2023 to life with a 20-year minimum without remission—upheld by the in December 2023.
Sandeep's March 2024 furlough bid was rejected under , because a non-family co-convict was on furlough. Vijay Dahiya faced similar roadblocks since 2024. They challenged (parole) and Note-1 to Rule 1224 (furlough), which state simultaneous releases to co-accused are "ordinarily not permissible," except for family members in exceptional cases.
News reports highlighted how multiple co-accused could trap prisoners in endless denial cycles, potentially barring furlough for years.
Petitioners' Cry: Don't Shackle Reformation
Counsel for the petitioners argued that parole and furlough are essential for family ties and societal reintegration, not mere privileges. Citing Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) and Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022), they urged "reading down" the rules to avoid defeating their humanitarian object. A strict bar, they warned via a chart of co-accused schedules, could indefinitely deny eligible convicts relief—violating .
Precedents like Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar (2018) supported interpretive flexibility for subordinate legislation to align with constitutional rights.
State's Stand: Discretion Shields Society
Representing the , counsel countered that parole/furlough is discretionary, not a right ( State of Gujarat v. Narayan , 2021). The notes prevent law-and-order risks from co-accused regrouping, balancing reformation with deterrence ( State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar , 2006). Family exceptions were narrow for good reason, drawn from Model Prison Rules, 2016.
Court's Balancing Act: Reformation Meets Caution
Drawing from Asfaq , the Bench dissected parole (temporary release for exigencies, sentence time not counted) versus furlough (reward for good conduct, time counted). Both aim to combat incarceration's ills—fostering self-confidence, family bonds, and hope ( Delhi Prison Act, 2000 ; ).
Rejecting a rigid ban, the Court held the word "ordinarily" signals discretion, not embargo. A blanket no would undermine reform, especially with many co-accused. Yet, authorities must probe risks: fresh crimes, witness threats? Mitigate via conditions.
The family exception is illustrative, not exhaustive. In large groups, staggered releases may be impractical—merits decide.
Precedents like Atbir reinforced furlough as conduct-based, even for life-without-remission convicts.
"there is no prohibition in the Competent Authority granting simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused, however, the same is restricted and the Competent Authority while considering such application would examine the same more strictly..."
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On Purpose
:
"The release of prisoner on parole not only saves him from the evils of incarceration but also enables him to maintain social relations with his family and community."
-
Balance Imperative
:
"a balance needs to be maintained between the rights and duty of the State... and... the right of such prisoner to live a life of dignity."
-
Rule's Spirit
:
"The Impugned Rules are only to restrict and not prohibit the simultaneous grant of parole/furlough to the co-accused."
-
Practical Guidance
:
"whether grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused is a threat of them combining together to commit fresh crime or threaten witnesses..."
Verdict: Rules Upheld, Path Cleared
The petitions were disposed without striking the rules, but with a directive: consider applications case-by-case under stricter scrutiny, honoring competing goals. No costs.
This precedent empowers competent authorities—while upholding rules—to favor rehabilitation without naivety. For multi-accused cases, it promises fairer access to air outside bars, potentially reshaping Delhi's prison releases amid rising scrutiny on reformative justice, as echoed in contemporary reports.
