IMPORTANT POINT
The grant of furlough as a reward for good conduct and the court's discretion in modifying furlough conditions based on the petitioner's conduct and fulfillment of eligibility criteria.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral) - The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of Order No.F.10/35444477/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2023, dated 02.11.2023 passed by respondent, and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to release the petitioner on furlough on furnishing cash surety in lieu of order granting furlough dated 07.07.2023.

2. In the present case, the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and his appeal against conviction i.e. CRL.A. 448/2012 was dismissed by this Court on 25.11.2017.

3. The petitioner herein had applied for grant of furlough to the competent authority, who was pleased to allow the application and had granted him furlough for a period of three weeks on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety on the like amount vide order dated 07.07.2023. The relevant portion of this order reads as under:

"In this regard, I am directed to inform that the Competent Authority (Prisons) has considered and pleased to grant 1st spell of Furlough to the above named convict for a period on Three Weeks from the date of his release subject to the following conditions:

1. That he shall furnish one surety of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) alongwith a personal bond in the like amount for his release on Furlough to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail No. 12

2. That he shall maintain peace and good behavior during his period of release on Furlough.

3. That he will remain at his residence during the period of his release on furlough and his ordinary place of residence shall be: Vill-Basantpur, PO-Samrota, Distt-Amethi Janpath, PS-Shivratan Ganj (UP).

4. That he shall report at least once in a week to Police Station under which his ordinary place of residence falls, during the period of his release on furlough.

5. That he shall surrender to the Superintendent, Central Jail No.12, Mandoli, Delhi on the expiry of his period of release on furlough."

4. Since, the petitioner was unable to arrange surety, he had filed an application before the competent authority for modification of the order and to release him on furnishing a cash surety. However, the office of the competent authority vide its order dated 02.11.2023 had dismissed the application. This order, which has been impugned before this Court, reads as under:

"This is in reference to application filed by above said convict for modification in furlough order dated 07.07.2023 to the extent to release her on furlough on personal bond/cash surety.

In this regard, I am directed to inform that the request of above said modification in the order dated 07.07.2023 to release her on furlough on personal bond/cash surety instead of one Surety was considered by the Competent Authority and same has been declined at this stage..."

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petitioner, who has suffered incarceration for about 13 years and 10 months, needs to main social ties and he be released on furnishing a cash surety. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted parole under HPC guidelines and was released on furnishing personal bond during the relevant period and he had surrendered in time and had also complied with all the terms and conditions of grant of parole. It is also stated that the rejection order has prejudiced him since he is eligible for availing furlough as per Rule 1210 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. It is also pointed out that on a few earlier occasions also, he was granted furlough which he could not avail due to non-availability of surety.

6. Learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both the parties and has gone through the case file.

8.