IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for parole under the Delhi Prison Rules-2018, specifically focusing on the petitioner's failure to fulfill the conditions of furlough and subsequent re-arrest.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order no. F18/171/2017HG/3311-12 dated 16.11.2023 passed by respondent, and/or issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks.

2. The petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, New Delhi. By virtue of judgment dated 29.08.2014, the petitioner was convicted under Section 302/201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 303/2009, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, New Delhi and vide order on sentence dated 30.08.2014, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith payment of fine of Rs. 7,000/-. His appeal against conviction i.e. CRL.A.229/2015 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2017. The Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2018.

3. The petitioner now seeks parole for a period of four weeks, for re-establishing social and family ties.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner had preferred an application on 16.07.2023, before the respondent, seeking grant of parole, but since the authorities had failed to decide the same within a reasonable period of time, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of a writ petition i.e. W.P.(Crl) 3029/2023. It is further stated that this Court vide order dated 16.10.2023 had observed that the respondent will decide the application for parole filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 16.11.2023, the respondent has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he had jumped the furlough which was granted to him in April, 2019 and was arrested thereafter in September, 2021. It is argued that the petitioner has already suffered punishment for the misconduct i.e. non-surrender on expiry of furlough, and more than two years have passed since the said incident. It is also stated that the conduct of the petitioner in last one year has been satisfactory, and he has been working as a legal sahayak in the jail and has been consistently rewarded by the jail authorities for his efforts and contribution. It is also argued that the petitioner has remained in jail for more than 12 years, and he seeks release on parole for curbing inner stress and re-establishing ties with his family members and society. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks.

5. Learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was released on furlough for two weeks, by the respondent on 11.04.2019, however, he had failed to surrender on 25.04.2019. It is stated that the petitioner was eventually after a period of more than two years i.e. on 03.09.2021 and was awarded a major punishment. Therefore, it is stated that since the overall conduct of the petitioner has not been satisfactory, the petitioner be not released on parole.

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

7. The order dated 16.11.2023, vide which the parole application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent, reads as under:

"...In this regard, I am to inform you that the request in respect of this above said convict for grant of parole has been considered and Rejected by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi in view of the followings:

1. The convict is not entitled for Parole in view of Rule 1210 sub rule (IV) of Delhi Prison Rules-2018, which states that:

1210 sub rule (IV): "The convict should not ha