The main legal point established is the significance of personal liberty, reformation theory of sentencing, and the need to balance public interest with the individual's potential for reformation and threat to society in granting furlough.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following relief:

"a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order no.F.10(3718433)/CJ/LEGAL/2023/4388 dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Respondent; and

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on 1st Spell of Furlough of 03 weeks; or

c. Pass any other order or further orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was denied furlough vide impugned order dated 17.01.2023 only on the ground that the petitioner did not surrender when he was released on emergency parole on 11.04.2020 for a period of 8 weeks which was further extended time to time due to COVID-19. It is further submitted that the petitioner kept on calling the jail authorities to know the date of his surrender and he was told that his emergency parole was extended from time to time and no such intimation was given to the petitioner with regard to his date of surrender. It is further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory and he was never punished inside the jail. It is further submitted that necessary requisite for granting furlough is 3 good conduct remissions which the petitioner has already earned. It is further submitted that furlough is allowed even after the conviction in various cases. It is further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.03.2008 and has undergone 9 years and 7 months in custody and has earned approximately 2 years of remission. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a family to support and for their subsistence he used to send money by working as "Weaving Sahayak" in the jail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following orders passed by this Court:

• Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in W.P. (CRL) 21/2023
• Ram Sagar @ Sagar vs. State NCT of Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 748/2022
• Surender alias Bhola vs. State of G.N.C.T. of Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 605/2022
• Sultan @ Rajesh vs. State of GNCT of Delhi in W.P. (CRL)764/2022
• Vinod @ Vinoda vs. The State (Govt of N.C.T. Delhi) in W.P. (CRL) 89/2023
• Anil Kumar vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) in W.P. (CRL) 1053/2020

4. On the other hand, It is submitted by learned ASC appearing for the State while vehemently opposing the present petition that when the petitioner was released on emergency parole, he did not surrender on due date and jumped the parole and later surrendered after 10 months and 27 days for which a punishment ticket against him was recorded. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested in another case FIR No. 185/2021 under Sections 324/341/34 IPC registered at Police Station Jama Masjid while he was on emergency parole.

5. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the status report filed by the State reveals that the petitioner was released on 11.04.2020 on emergency parole which was extended from time to time due to COVID-19 pandemic till 27.02.2021, however, he did not surrender in jail on due date and jumped the emergency parole, thereafter he surrendered on 24.01.2022. I have also perused the nominal roll dated 04.04.2023 which shows that the petitioner has undergone about 9 years, 7 months and 27 days actual incarceration and he has also earned about 1 year 7 months and 22 days' remission. As far as the contention of learned ASC regarding non surrendering of the petitioner on time is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner never had notice of the date on which he was supposed to surrender before the jail authorities.

6. Moreover, no document has been placed by the State to show that the petitioner was informed about his date of surrender and despite that he did not surrender. Further, it has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that t