Convictions Recorded During Continuous Incarceration Can't Make Prisoner 'Habitual Offender': Delhi High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
8 Jan 2026 8:55 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has held that convictions recorded while a prisoner is continuously incarcerated cannot render the prisoner a “habitual offender” for the purpose of denying furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by a life convict, challenging the rejection of his furlough application on the ground that he was a habitual offender under Rule 1223(ii) of the Delhi Prison Rules.
Petitioner has continuously been in judicial custody since October 2007. He sought furlough to maintain family ties and to alleviate the stress of prolonged incarceration.
His application was however rejected by the jail authority in September 2025 on the ground that he had been convicted in multiple cases and was therefore ineligible for furlough being a habitual offender.
Petitioner argued that the rejection was based on an erroneous understanding of the expression “habitual offender”, especially in light of the amended definition issued by the Government pursuant to Supreme Court's directions in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024).
The amended definition requires that a person must be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two occasions within a continuous period of five years, excluding any period spent in jail.
After examining the amended definition, the Court agreed while computing the said period of five years, any time spent in jail, whether under sentence or detention, must be excluded. It observed,
“Once the proviso (to the definition) is applied, it becomes evident that the definition envisages a situation where a person, while at liberty, is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two occasions within a span of five years.”
Applying this interpretation to the facts, the Court noted that all convictions relied upon by the authorities had been recorded after the Petitioner had already been taken into custody in 2007.
Once the period spent in jail was excluded, there was no continuous five-year period during which the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two occasions.
The Court also clarified that the five-year period contemplated under the rule is linked to the stage of conviction and sentence, and not merely to the commission of offences.
It illustrated, “if the interpretation advanced by the State is adopted – it would mean that if a person commits offences in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, but is convicted in the years 2005, 2012 and 2018 respectively, he would be treated as a habitual offender on the basis of the dates of commission of offence, even though the convictions are spread over several years, and not a period of five years.”
On the other hand, the Court continued, “if a person commits offences in the years 2000, 2007 and 2008, and is convicted in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, he would not be treated as a habitual offender, even though the convictions are recorded within a period of five years. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an interpretation would be in direct contradiction to the clear wording of the definition of „habitual offender‟, which clearly emphasises on “conviction and sentence” within a continuous period of five years.”
As such, the Court set aside the impugned rejection order and remanded the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration within four weeks.
Appearance: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Harsha, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate and with SI Upendra Pandey, PS New Ashok Nagar for Respondent
Case title: Vinod @ Vinode @ Bhole v. The State (Govt Of Nct) Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 3044/2025