$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 622/2026 KRISHAN RAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja, DHCLSC with Mr. Nikhil Gupta, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl) for State with Mr. Arijit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates along with SI Vinod Kumar, PS:Mehrauli, Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 20.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 5852/2026 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 622/2026

3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the Rejection Order No F.10(3504883)/CJ/LEGAL/2026/521 dated 21.01.2026, passed by Director General (Prisons), and for the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of two weeks.

4. The petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi. In the present case, the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC') and was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. His appeal against conviction i.e. CRL.A. 1287/2011 was dismissed by this Court on

17.02.2014.

5. The leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that in this case, a punishment (warning) was awarded to the petitioner herein for surrendering late by 01 day i.e. on 10.09.2025 instead of 09.09.2025, and only on the said ground, he has been denied the relief of furlough. It is argued that the petitioner herein has been released on furlough on 13 occasions and also on parole/emergency parole on certain occasions in past, and he has never misused the liberty so granted to him. It is further stated that the petitioner has been incarcerated for more than 14 years, without remission, and 17 years including the period of remission. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be released on furlough.

6. On the other hand, the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner was granted furlough by the DG (prisons) but he had surrendered late by one day, and thus, his overall conduct is not satisfactory. Therefore, he prays that the present petition be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the State, and has gone through the material placed on record.

8. This Court notes that the petitioner’s application for grant of furlough was rejected by the competent authority on 21.01.2026, by way of the following order:

“1. As per Para 1223(i) of Delhi Prison Rules 2018-Gpod conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual Good Conduct Report and continues to maintain good conduct. Hence, prisoner is not fulfilling criteria referred in Para 1223. (i) of Delhi Prison Rules 2018 as the convict has not earned last three Annual Good Conduct Report; being ·punishment dated: 10.09.2025 for surrender late by 01 day after expiry of furlough.”

9. It is apparent that the sole ground for denying furlough to the petitioner is the fact that he had surrendered late by one day when he was released on furlough in August 2025.

10. It is, however, clear from the Nominal Roll that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of furlough on as many as 13 occasions in past, including twice in the year 2025. He has, as such, always surrendered on time, except on three occasions i.e. twice in the year 2015 and once in the year 2025, when on all these occasions, he surrendered late merely by 01 day. The delay in surrendering before the jail authorities, therefore, is not substantial. The last one year conduct of the petitioner is also reported as satisfactory.

11. This Court also takes note of the fact that punishment dated 16.09.2025 was in the form of only a warning issued by the concerned Jail Superintendent. In this regard, it is to be noted that Rule 1178 of the Delhi Priso