The court emphasized that good conduct in prison is a valid basis for granting furlough, overriding past re-arrests during parole.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of Order No F.10(21760)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2025/M-1044, dated 04.02.2025, passed by Director General (Prisons), and issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on 1^st Spell of furlough for a period of three weeks.

2. As set out in the petition, and evident from the Nominal Roll on record, the petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, New Delhi, as he was convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302/307/324/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section of 25 Arms Act, 1959 and was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by him against his conviction, i.e. CRL.A. 549/2012, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2015.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petitioner had approached the Competent Authority for grant of furlough for a period of three weeks vide application dated 15.01.2025; however, the same was dismissed by way of impugned order dated 04.02.2025 on the ground that when he was released on emergency parole during Covid-19 pandemic, he was re- arrested by the police in about 10 other cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was falsely implicated and wrongly arrested in the said 10 cases while he was on parole, which is evident from the fact that he has already been acquitted in 08 out of the 10 cases and has been granted bail in other cases. It is submitted that in the year 2023, the petitioner was granted parole by this Court on the ground of marriage of his brother, while noting the factum of his re-arrest in aforesaid cases. Further, while on Parole, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order of Sentence Review Board and for grant of permanent remission and stay was granted on his surrender. On 21.10.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted two weeks time to the petitioner for surrendering before the jail authorities, and he had surrendered within the stipulated time. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that since 28.06.2021 (date of petitioner’s re-arrest), the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail and not even a single punishment has been recorded against him. It is therefore contended that the jail authorities have failed to appreciate that as per Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 , the petitioner is eligible for grant of furlough as he has maintained good conduct inside jail and has earned reward in last three annual good conduct report, and that he continues to maintain good conduct.

4. The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, argues that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender, and he was re-arrested after being released on emergency parole in 10 other cases. It is also contended that the overall jail conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory and he was given punishments in the past also. It is therefore submitted that if released on furlough, there is every likelihood that the petitioner may re-engage in criminal activities or abscond and fail to surrender.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for either side, and has perused the material placed on record.

6. The petitioner’s application seeking furlough was rejected by the Competent Authority vide following order dated 04.02.2025:

“... That he was released on Emergency Parole for 03 weeks w.e.f. 27.11.2020 to 19.12.2020 by the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and same was extended time to time but he was re-arrested on 28.06.2021 in 10 other cases. The convict has violated the conditions of emergency parole. Hence, s request for furlough stands rejected…”

7. At the outset, this Court notes that during the course of arguments, the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State did not dispute the fact that no FIR had been registered a