##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 25.03.2026 Pronounced on: 29.04.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 1832/2024 & CRL.M.A. 17833/2024 SANDEEP ALIAS SANDY .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Ranbir Singh Kundu, Mr.Shubham Mavi and Mr.Paras, Advs.

versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr.Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr.Alok Sharma, Adv. and SI Sukhwinder Singh, Crime Branch + W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8855/2025 VIJAY DAHIYA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Panel Counsel, DHCLSC, with Ms. A. Sahitya Veena, Ms. Deepshikha and Ms. Ananya Luthra, Advs.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with Mr.

Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh and Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh Senger, Advs. and SI Sukhwinder Singh, Crime Branch.

DBS18iyi g g : : 4nRit 6i aEn: l 1gYly 7 DM S aOi t g eNn :2 e V9 d .A04S.H20 WI2S6T.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 1 of 29 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. These petitions raise a common challenge to NOTE-2 of Rule 1212 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as „Rules‟) and NOTE-(1) to Rule 1224 of the Rules. They are, therefore, being taken up together for disposal by way of this common judgment.

2. NOTE:-(2) of Rule 1212 reads as under:-

“(2) Simultaneous parole to co-accused is ordinarily not permissible, however, in exceptional circumstances competent authority may consider for reasons in writing for granting parole to co-accused who are family members.”

3 . NOTE:-(1) of Rule 1224 reads as under:-

“Note: - (1) Simultaneous furlough to co- accused convicts are ordinarily not permissible. However, when co-accused convicts are family members, simultaneous release may be considered in exceptional circumstances only.”

4. The challenge to the above Rules stems out of the rejection, by the order dated 05.03.2024, of the application filed by Sandeep @ Sandy, petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 1832/2024, for being released on furlough, on the ground that his co-convict, who is not a blood relation of the petitioner, has been granted furlough, and in accordance with Note:-(1) of Rule 1224 of the above Rules, simultaneous release of co-

convict on furlough is not permissible.

DBS18iyi g g : : 4nRit 6i aEn: l 1gYly 7 DM S aOi t g eNn :2 e V9 d .A04S.H20 WI2S6T.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 2 of 29

5. Briefly stated, the petitioners are amongst six accused persons who were convicted by the learned Trial Court vide judgement dated 03.02.2018 in a case arising out of FIR bearing no. 862/2016 registered under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, New Delhi. The appeals preferred by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence, being Criminal Appeal No. 399/2018 titled Sandeep@ Sandy v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Criminal Appeal No. 391/2018 titled Vijay Dahiya v. The State, were partly allowed by this Court vide a common Judgment dated 26.06.2023. While the conviction of the petitioners was upheld, the sentence awarded was modified to imprisonment for life with minimum 20 years of actual imprisonment without any remission. The fine amount and default sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court were sustained. The Special Leave Petition filed there-against, being SLP (Crl.) No. 16306/2023, was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.12.2023.

6. The present challenge has arisen as the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) 1832/2024 has been denied furlough on the ground that he cannot be released on furlough simultaneously with his co-accused, while the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) 945/2025 has alleged that he has also been unable to avail furlough since 2024 on account of the same restriction. They therefore, impugn the above two provisions of the Rules, which they contend are being interpreted as completely prohibiting release of co-accused persons simultane