Atbir vs State of NCT of Delhi - 2022 Supreme(SC) 386

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 386

DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Atbir – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Neha Kapoor, Harsha Vinoy, Akhilesh Aggarwal, Mohit Bhadu, Milind Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG S.V. Raju, ASG Sairica Raju, Vanshaja Shukla, Kanu Agrawal, Mehul Milind Gupta, Preeti Rani, Anshuman Singh, Ankit Bhatia, Harsh Paul Singh, Arpit Goel, Ankeeta Appanna, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the entitlement to furlough as an incentive for good conduct and reform persists independently of the existence of remission or parole rights, especially when the presidential order explicitly does not prohibit furlough. The court held that the purpose of furlough is rooted in encouraging good behavior and reform, and therefore, its denial solely on the grounds that the prisoner is serving a life sentence without remission or parole is unjustified. The court emphasized that the conditions for granting furlough are based on the prisoner’s conduct and reports, which remain relevant and protected under the applicable rules, regardless of the restrictions imposed by the presidential order (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, serving the sentence of imprisonment for whole of his natural life after commuting of death sentence by the Hon’ble President of India, has preferred this appeal on being aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2021, as passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 3345 of 2019 dismissing his writ petition against the order dated 21.10.2019, as issued by the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, Janakpuri, New Delhi declining his prayer to grant furlough.

2.1. The prayer of the appellant for grant of furlough has been declined by the orders aforesaid essentially with reference to the conditions of the order dated 15.11.2012 issued by the Hon’ble President of India on a mercy petition whereby, even while modifying the sentence of death as awarded to the appellant to the one of imprisonment for life, it was provided that the appellant would remain in prison ‘for the whole of the remainder of his natural life without parole and there shall be no remission of the term of imprisonment’.

2.2. The contention on behalf of the appellant essentially is to the effect that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 386

DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSEAtbir – AppellantVersusState of NCT of Delhi – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Atbir – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent