JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2-Commissioner, Karnal Division, District Karnal (Annexure P-1) vide which his prayer for being released on Furlough for 3 weeks has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sentenced and convicted for life imprisonment vide judgment dated 06.07.2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal under Sections 436 , 342, 307, 302, 34 IPC. The petitioner has already undergone 10 years of imprisonment and it is a matter of record that during his stay in jail, not even once he has misconducted himself. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has his wife, mother, two sons and two daughters in his family, who are based in Ghaziabad, U.P., he moved an application for being released on Furlough for a period of three weeks so that he could meet them. Learned counsel, while drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure P-1 has submitted that only on the basis of a vague apprehension by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, that there could be a possibility of the petitioner absconding during Furlough, the Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal had declined his prayer for being given the incentive of furlough. Learned counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and others , 2017 AIR (SC) 4986 has held as under:

"15) The provisions of parole and furlough, thus, provide for a humanistic approach towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of such provisions is to afford to them an opportunity to solve their personal and family problems and to enable them to maintain their links with society. Even citizens of this country have a vested interest in preparing offenders for successful re-entry into society. Those who leave prison without strong networks of support, without employment prospects, without a fundamental knowledge of the communities to which they will return, and without resources, stand a significantly higher chance of failure. When offenders revert to criminal activity upon release, they frequently do so because they lack hope of merging into society as accepted citizens. Furloughs or parole can help prepare offenders for success."

3. Learned counsel has submitted that merely on the basis of some vague apprehension, without there being any cogent reason given the petitioner could not be deprived from meeting his family, more so, since he had completed three-fourth of the sentence awarded to him. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was ready to furnish surety bonds and bail bonds to the satisfaction of the jail authorities and give an undertaking that he would not misuse the concession of furlough and would return to the jail within time. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-2, which is a report of the Gram Panchayat, Village Nidori Basti, Block Rajapur, Ghaziabad wherein also no objection has been raised to the petitioner being released on furlough.

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has not controverted that the petitioner's conduct throughout inside the jail has been good. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case nor is there any criminal case pending against him. Still further, it has also not been disputed that as per the report of Gram Panchayat, Village Nidori Basi, Block Rajapur, Ghaziabad (Annexure P-2) the gram panchayat has not objected to the release of the petitioner on furlough. However, it has been submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for being given furlough had been declined on account of the report