$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3368/2025 AMARJEET .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav & Mr. Nitin Kumar Yadav, Advocates versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with Mr.

Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Ms. Chavi Lazarus & Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Advocates Inspector Mukesh Kumar with SI Sonu Giri, PS Ambedkar Nagar are present in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing the order No. F.10(3812481)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2025/6277 dated 01.10.2025, passed by the Office of Director General of Prisons, Tihar, and for directions to the respondent to grant the petitioner 1^st spell of furlough for a period of

03weeks.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner herein was convicted in case FIR No. 204/1999, registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar, for offence under Section 302 IPC and vide order on sentence dated 11.10.2001, he has been sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to undergo further 01 month RI . Criminal appeal filed by petitioner bearing CRL.A. 755/2002 against his conviction, has been dismissed by this Court on 02.07.2024. Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition, which is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. Petitioner’s request for grant of furlough has been rejected by the competent authority vide order No. F.10 (3812481) / CJ / LEGAL / PHQ / 2025/6277 dated 01.10.2025 on the ground that he has not earned 03 Annual Good Conduct Report (AGCR) consecutively, thereby becoming ineligible for grant of furlough. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of furlough for a period of 03 weeks.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for about 06 years 06 months currently. It is argued that the rejection order No. F.10(3812481)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2025/6277 dated 01.10.2025 has been passed by the competent authority without proper application of mind. It is stated that as per the Nominal Roll, the petitioner’s conduct has been “Satisfactory” and no punishment tickets are awarded to him by the jail authorities- which is in direct contradiction to the reasoning given by competent authority while rejecting the furlough application stating that the petitioner had not earned 03 AGCR consecutively.

5. The Ld. Counsel further submits that petitioner was released on bail during the pendency of his appeal but he duly surrendered on 08.07.2024, thus not misusing the liberty of bail. It is further argued that Rule 1223 (I) does not specify that AGCR must pertain only to the immediately preceding three years. In support of arguments, reliance is placed on judgment passed by Coordinate bench of this Court in Chandan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL.) 2578/2025, dated 08.10.2025. The petitioner is a 48 years old man having clean antecedents. He has never availed any spell of furlough or parole during his period of incarceration and agrees to abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. It is prayed that furlough be granted to the petitioner.

6. Learned ASC for the State has submitted the status report and states that petitioner has committed grave and heinous offence and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and therefore not entitled to the grant of furlough.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Rule 1223 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 sets forth the eligibility criteria for grant of furlough, which reads as under:

“1223. In order to be eligible to obtain furlough, the prisoner must fulfil the following criteria:-

I. Good conduct in the prison and should earned rewards in last

3 Annual good conduct report and continues to maintain good conduct.

II. The prisoner should not be a habitual offender.

III. The prisoner should be a