$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3842/2025 SONU SONKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pratap Singh (DHCLSC), Advocate.

versus STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kshitiz Garg with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocates for Mr.

Amol Sinha, ASC for the State.

SI Ramjee Singh, P.S.: Adarsh Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026 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, the petitioner impugns order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar : Janakpuri : New Delhi, whereby the concerned authorities have rejected the petitioner’s application seeking furlough, on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the requirements of Rule 1223(i) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 (‘DPR’). As consequential relief, the petitioner also seeks a direction to the concerned authorities to release him on furlough for a period of 03 weeks.

2. Notice on this petition was issued vidé order dated 21.11.2025.

3. Status Report dated 08.01.2026 has been filed.

4. As can be seen from communication dated 10.12.2025 appended to the status report, which contains an endorsement dated 10.12.2025, intimation about the pendency of the present proceedings has been served upon the next-of-kin of the deceased victim.

5. Status Report and Nominal Roll dated 13.01.2026 have also been received from the Jail Superintendent.

6. The court has heard Mr. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Kshitiz Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC for the State. No one is present on behalf of the next-of-kin of the deceased, despite service of intimation.

7. Mr. Singh submits, that the petitioner has suffered actual judicial custody of more than 18 years and has earned remission of more than 03 years. Learned counsel also points-out, that as would be seen from the nominal roll, the petitioner has been granted parole 06 times; and has been released on furlough 12 times.

8. Learned counsel further submits, that it be also noted, that though the overall conduct of the petitioner in the prison has been recorded as ‘unsatisfactory’, the last prison punishment awarded to him was on 04.03.2024 and all prison punishments awarded to the petitioner were for alleged misbehaviour with prison staff, which allegations, even if true, would only qualify as minor misconduct. Mr. Singh argues, that in any case, the petitioner has served the punishments so imposed upon him.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Garg appearing for the State argues, that upon approval of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, GNCTD, the petitioner was granted the benefit of premature release from judicial custody on 11.09.2019; however, while availing premature release, the petitioner had to be re-arrested in another case bearing FIR No. 539/2021 and, as a consequence, his remission was cancelled since the petitioner had violated the terms of his premature release.

10. Mr. Garg also points-out that Rule 1223(i) of the DPR requires a prisoner to maintain good conduct in the prison, and to earn at least three Annual Good Conduct Reports, which the petitioner has failed to do.

11. Mr. Garg submits, that for the above reasons, the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria contained in Rule 1223(i) of the DPR for release on furlough.

12. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner argues, that cancellation of the petitioner’s remission has no bearing on the prayer in the present petition, since the petitioner is now again serving life sentence; and is accordingly, entitled to all other benefits and liberties that are available under the DPR to a convict serving life sentence.

13. Learned counsel argues, that the grant of furlough is almost a matter of right under the DPR; and, insofar as the contention that the petitioner was rearrested in a different