Co-Convicts Can Be Granted Parole/Furlough Together In Appropriate Cases, No Absolute Bar: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no absolute prohibition on the simultaneous grant of parole or furlough to co-convicts, holding that such release can be permitted in appropriate cases subject to stricter scrutiny by the competent authority.A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging Note (2) to Rule 1212 and...
The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no absolute prohibition on the simultaneous grant of parole or furlough to co-convicts, holding that such release can be permitted in appropriate cases subject to stricter scrutiny by the competent authority.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging Note (2) to Rule 1212 and Note (1) to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which state that simultaneous parole or furlough to co-accused is “ordinarily not permissible.”
The petitioners, who were convicted in a murder case, challenged the Rules after their applications for furlough were rejected on the ground that their co-convicts had already been granted release.
They argued that the Rules were being interpreted as imposing a complete bar on simultaneous release, thereby defeating the purpose of parole and furlough.
The High Court rejected the challenge to the validity of the Rules but clarified their scope. It held that the use of the expression “ordinarily” in the Rules indicates that there is no complete prohibition, and that the competent authority retains discretion to grant simultaneous parole or furlough in appropriate circumstances.
“There is no prohibition in the Competent Authority granting simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused, however, the same is restricted and the Competent Authority while considering such application would examine the same more strictly in accordance with the Rules,” it observed.
The Court further said that reading the Rules as an absolute bar would defeat the very object of parole and furlough, which are reformative measures intended to maintain social ties and aid rehabilitation of prisoners.
“A balance needs to be maintained between the rights and duty of the State, on the one hand, to ensure that a person who has violated law and is punished with imprisonment undergoes such punishment and does not cause further threat to society, and on the other hand, the right of such prisoner to live a life of dignity by having a chance to maintain his social ties and to be able to breathe free air, albeit for some time,” it added.
At the same time, the Court emphasised that the competent authority must exercise its discretion cautiously, keeping in view public safety concerns and the possibility of co-convicts acting together to commit offences or influence witnesses.
It noted that while simultaneous release is generally discouraged, it may be permitted where justified—such as when the grounds for parole are compelling, or where a large number of co-convicts make staggered release impractical.
With these observations, the Court held that challenge to the Prison Rules have no merit and disposed of the plea
Appearance: Mr.Ranbir Singh Kundu, Mr.Shubham Mavi and Mr.Paras, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr.Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr.Alok Sharma, Adv. and SI Sukhwinder Singh, Crime Branch for Respondents
Case title: Sandeep alias Sandy v. State
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 1832/2024