$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3884/2025 JITENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Mr. Gautam Buddha Singh, Advocates.

(DHCLSC)

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State alongwith Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Manan Wadhwa, Advocates.

SI P.Prakash, P.S.: Sultan Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026 By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks furlough for 03 weeks.

2. Notice on this petition was issued on 26.11.2025.

3. Mr. Kshitiz Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC for the State has handed-up a status report dated

08.01.2026.

4. The same is taken on record.

5. Mr. Yugansh Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner’s application seeking furlough has been rejected by the jail authorities vide order dated 17.10.2025 on the ground that he has failed to earn 03 Annual Good Conduct reports, which are a pre-condition for availing furlough, in accordance with Rule 1223(I) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

6. Furthermore, it is argued, that the rejection order also records that the petitioner’s jail conduct has been ‘unsatisfactory’ since he has been awarded multiple prison punishments.

7. Mr. Mittal however submits, that a perusal of the nominal roll would show that there are principally 02 unsatisfactory acts alleged against the petitioner: the first is that he had to be re-arrested on 05.06.2023 since he did not surrender on expiration of the ‘emergency parole’ granted to him during the then prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Mittal argues, that it is well-known that ‘emergency parole’ was granted by way of general orders during the pandemic, initially with effect from 31.03.2020, which was thereafter extended from time-to- time and continued till April 2023.It is submitted that it is also well- known that there was confusion as to the date(s) of surrender of convicts, and as a result various convicts had failed to surrender back on time. It is submitted that the petitioner was in the same situation; and had failed to surrender only because of the confusion prevailing at that time.

8. Mr. Mittal points-out, that it must be noticed that the petitioner was rearrested soon thereafter, i.e., on 05.06.2023; and most importantly, even thereafter, he was granted furlough by this court on 02 occasions on 29.02.2024 and 02.08.2024.

9. Furthermore, Mr. Mittal argues that the second omission being held against the petitioner, is that he had failed to surrender on time upon expiry of the furlough granted to him vidé order dated 02.08.2024 by this court. On this aspect, it is submitted that the furlough granted was further extended for a period of 04 weeks by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.08.2024; but thereafter, as would be seen from a perusal of the order-sheets, counsel who was appearing for the petitioner had failed to appear before the court, and did not inform the petitioner that his furlough had not been extended any further after 13.11.2024; and as a result, the petitioner did not surrender back to the custody.

10. In this behalf, attention is drawn to order dated 13.11.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.(CRL) No. 2827/2024, which records that no one was present on behalf of the petitioner on that date, which led the court to infer that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding to appear before the court; and the court also recorded that if the petitioner failed to appear, the matter would be heard in his absence.

11. Counsel submits that counsel appearing for the petitioner at that time did not inform him about order dated 13.11.2024; however, when the petitioner learned of the position, he voluntarily appeared before this court on 28.04.2024, and surrend