Same Argument Cannot Be An Obstacle Every Time In Granting Furlough, Personal Freedom A Fundamental Right: Delhi High Court

The petitioner, stated to be in judicial custody since 2009, had moved the court assailing an order dated October 03, 2023, whereby he was denied furlough on the ground that he jumped parole granted by the court earlier.

His counsel drew attention of the court to his jail conduct and highlighted that he used to send money to support his wife and children, earned by serving as “Bakery Sahayak” in the jail.

The State opposed petitioner's plea by submitting that he had earlier jumped parole.

In its analysis, the court took note of the fact that in nearly 12 years of his incarceration, the petitioner had earned about 2 years of remission as well as appreciation certificates.

Regarding the State's contention that the petitioner earlier jumped parole, it was observed that subsequent to jumping parole, the petitioner had again been granted parole (3 years later) by a Co-ordinate Bench, in February, 2023. On that occasion, the issue of jumping parole was raised by the State and considered by the concerned Bench.

In this backdrop, Justice Bhatnagar said, “…the same contention cannot be an obstacle every time in granting furlough”.

While arriving at a decision in favor of the petitioner, the court made reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, where it was opined that parole programme should be used as a tool to shape prisoners' adjustments.

To quote the Bench in Asfaq (Supra),

“…not all people in prison are appropriate for grant of furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society and whose behavior shows that they aspire to live as law-abiding citizens.”.

Accordingly, petitioner was granted furlough for two weeks, subject to conditions stipulated in the order.

Counsels for petitioner: Advocates Kunal Malhotra (DHCLSC), Ravinder Gaur & Lalit Choudhary

Counsel for respondent-State: ASC Rahul Tyagi

Case Title: Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221