The judgment emphasizes the public interest in granting furlough, considering the reformation theory of sentencing and the potential threat to society posed by habitual offenders.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar J. (Oral)--By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03.12.2022 whereby the application for furlough was dismissed and further seeking his release on furlough for a period of 3 weeks.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was denied furlough vide impugned order dated 03.12.2022 only on the ground that the petitioner did not surrender when he was released on parole in the year 2012. It is further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is good and he was also awarded good conduct certificates by jail authorities. It is further submitted that necessary requisite for granting furlough is 3 good conduct remissions which the petitioner has already earned, in fact, the petitioner has earned 7 good conduct remissions even after his re-arrest. It is further submitted that furlough is allowed even after the conviction in various cases. It is also submitted that the alleged crime committed by the petitioner were way back in 2015 and thereafter petitioner has maintained good conduct and earned these 7 good conduct remissions. It is further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since year 2000 and has undergone more than 19 years in custody and has earned approximately 4 years of remission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the orders passed by this Court in Satender alias Gajender v. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) in W.P.(CRL) 221/2022 and Rajkumar alias Bhola V. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) in W.P.(CRL) 25/2023.

3. On the other hand, learned ASC appearing for the State has argued on the lines of the status report and has opposed the present petition on the ground that during the period when he was released on parole, first, he jumped the parole and did not surrender; second, he committed an offence for which an FIR bearing no. 453/2015 under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered and, thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested. It is further submitted by him that another case bearing FIR No. 444/2015, under Sections 328/379/34 IPC was also registered against him while he was absconding parole, hence on this ground alone furlough cannot be granted to petitioner. It is further submitted that once a person has jumped furlough or parole, he is never eligible for grant of furlough. It is further submitted that overall conduct of the petitioner has not been satisfactory.

4. In the instant case, the petitioner has not availed the benefit of furlough for the last 8 years since 27.07.2015 and has undergone sentence for more than 23 years including remission. The conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and he has earned 7 good conduct remissions except that he jumped parole and was re-arrested on 27.07.2015.

5. For further adjudication, reliance can be placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

"19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other competing public interest has also to be kept in mind while deciding as to whether in a particular case parole or furlough is to be granted or not. This public interest also demands that those who are habitual offinders and may have the tendency to commit the crime again after their release on parole or have the tendency to become a threat to the law and order of the society, should not be released on parole. This aspect takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely, deterrence and prevention. This side of the coin is the experience that great number of crimes are committed by the offenders who have been put back in the street after conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to whether a particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole or not, the a