Furlough is a discretionary relief under the Delhi Prison Rules, limited to inmates who meet specific eligibility criteria, including good conduct remissions, which the petitioner could not satisfy.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] seeking grant of first spell of furlough for a period of 21 days to the petitioner and for quashing of the rejection order dated29^th October, 2025 passed by the Jail Authority.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 28^th March, 2008 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 /34 of Indian Penal Code [“IPC”], Rigorous Imprisonment [“RI”] for 10 years under Section 364 /34 and RI for 5 years under Section 201 /34 with fine. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 02^nd April, 2014. The State and the first informant/complainant (respondent No.3) preferred petitions seeking enhancement of sentence before this Court. Vide judgment dated 06^th February, 2015, the Division Bench of this Court enhanced the sentence awarded to the petitioner and directed that the petitioner shall undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 /34 IPC , which shall be 25 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission and fine of Rs. 15,00,000/-, RI for 10 years with fine for offence under Section 364 /34 and RI for 5 years with fine for offence under Section 201 /34 . It was further directed that the sentence for conviction of offences under /34 and /34 shall run concurrently, however, the sentence under /34 was directed to run consecutively to the other sentences.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner vide judgment dated 17^th August, 2015 and subsequently, vide order dated 03^rd October, 2016, the sentences and other directions passed by the High Court were upheld with only modification that the sentence imposed under Section 201 /34 IPC shall run concurrently with sentences under Section 302 /34 and not consecutively, as earlier directed by this Court.

5. The petitioner had earlier sought 21 days furlough vide LPA 516/2018, which was dismissed by the Division bench of this Court on 07^th September, 2018 on the ground that good conduct remission is a prerequisite for furlough. As the petitioner, being sentenced to life imprisonment, is barred from consideration for remission for 25 years, he is not entitled to any remission, including annual good conduct remission required for furlough.

6. As per the nominal roll, the petitioner has undergone about 23 years of actual custody, and is presently working as a Ward Sahayak, but his application seeking the first spell of furlough was considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 29^th October, 2025. The relevant order of the competent authority is reproduced hereunder;

7. On 01^st December, 2025, the Office of the Director General of Prisons issued a corrigendum vide F.10(3467481)/ CJ/ Legal/ PHQ/ 2025/8402, partially modifying its order dated 29^th October, 2025 by substituting para 4(l)(i) to read that the convict must have earned rewards in the last three Annual Good Conduct Remissions and continue to maintain good conduct, while the rest of the order remained unchanged. The corrigendum F.10(3467481)/ CJ/ Legal/ PHQ/ 2025/8402, is reproduced as under;

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:

8. Mr. Vikas