IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the objectives of furlough as per the Delhi Prison Rules and considered the petitioner's eligibility and conduct in jail in granting the relief.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') for issuance of (i) writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order no. F.10.(3741956)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2023/55187 dated 04.09.2023 passed by the respondent, and (ii) writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on first spell of Furlough for three weeks.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had been confined in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, New Delhi and is serving life sentence, of which he has already served about 9 years and 7 months in custody. It is stated that petitioner had applied to DG (Prisons) for grant of first spell of Furlough for three weeks. However, vide impugned order no. F.10.(3741956)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2023/55187 dated 04.09.2023, the same was rejected by the concerned authority. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 04.09.2023 and for grant of Furlough for a period of three weeks on the ground of maintaining social ties with family and friends.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent has denied furlough to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 04.09.2023 on erroneous grounds and without application of mind. It is argued that the petitioner herein fulfills the criteria as prescribed by the Delhi Prison Rules 2018 for grant of furlough and he has also earned last three Annual Good Conduct Reports. It is also submitted that as per the nominal roll, the conduct of the petitioner has also been satisfactory inside the jail. As regards the observation in the impugned order that the petitioner had once surrendered late by six days when he was granted emergency parole, it is argued by learned counsel that after this incident itself, the respondent had granted emergency parole again to the petitioner and he had surrendered on time. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be allowed.

4. Learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, argues that considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner and in view of adverse report of the police, the petitioner should not be released on furlough.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for petitioner and learned ASC for the State and has perused the material placed on record.

6. As per nominal roll on record, the petitioner herein had been convicted in case arising out of FIR No. 15/2014, registered at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi under Sections 325/363/376(2)(I)&(M) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. By virtue of order on sentence dated 28.04.2018, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed by the petitioner i.e. CRL.A. 595/2018 against his conviction was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 04.09.2018.

7. This Court notes that in the present case, the petitioner had filed an application before the DG (Prisons) for grant of first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 04.09.2023, which reads as under:

"...This is in reference to the application for grant of furlough to convict Gopi Nisha Mallah s/o Jai Ram Mallah.

In this regard, I am directed to inform you that the Competent Authority has considered the application for grant of furlough and same has been declined at this stage in view of nature of crime committed by him, adverse police report, 06 days late surrender on 09.03.2021 after emergency parole..."

8. As per nominal roll, the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for about 09 years and 07 months, with remission earned of about 01 year and 08 months. As per records, the petitioner had earlier been granted interim bail on two occasions during the course of trial and this Court had also granted him parole for a period of 06 weeks from 18.