Delhi Prison Rules| Convict Can’t Be Denied Furlough Solely On Ground Of Him Not Having A Permanent Residential Address: High Court
The Delhi High Court held that a convict cannot be denied Furlough solely on the ground of him not having a permanent residential address in Delhi.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition preferred by a prisoner seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Order of the Office of Director General of Prisons, Tihar and seeking his release on First Spell of Furlough for a period of three weeks.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Though the Delhi Prison Rules mandate that a convict-prisoner seeking Furlough must furnish both the last confirmed address and the address where he intends to stay during the period of Furlough period, there is no rule stipulating that a convict can be denied Furlough on the sole ground of him not having a permanent residential address in Delhi.”
The Bench noted that Furlough serves as both a reward for the prisoners’ commendable behaviour and an acknowledgment of the reformation evident in their consistent conduct within the prison. It added that, the same is a recognition of their merit under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, granting them an opportunity to sustain familial and social bonds.
Advocate Anup Kumar Das appeared on behalf of the Petitioner/Prisoner while Amicus Curiae Anish Dewan appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Factual Background -
The Petitioner was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi and was serving life sentence awarded to him in a case arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. In 2002, the said FIR was registered against him on the allegations that he had attacked a man with a knife causing injuries on his chest and neck, stabbed that man’s younger brother, and had assaulted their mother during an altercation. That man had died at the spot and his brother died in hospital. After the conclusion of trial, the Petitioner was convicted in 2008 and was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court. Accordingly, a Death Sentence Reference was made to the High Court and the Court converted the death sentence into life imprisonment.
The Petitioner neither challenged his conviction before the High Court, nor challenged the Division Bench’s Order before the Supreme Court. He continued to remain in jail since 2002 and was never released either on Bail/Parole/Furlough. In the year 2020, his case was examined by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) for the purpose of his premature release. The SRB observed that the offence committed was grave in nature and that the Petitioner had never availed any Bail, Furlough or Parole. On these grounds, the SRB refused to release the Petitioner prematurely. In 2023, the Petitioner approached the Competent Authority for grant of First Spell of Furlough for a period of 3 weeks. But his Application was rejected on the sole ground that he had no permanent address in Delhi and wished to reside at the address of another inmate who was earlier lodged in the same jail. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, said, “There is no specific or general rule in the Delhi Prison Rules requiring a convict to have been previously released on parole or furlough as a prerequisite for the Sentence Review Board to recommend premature release. The Delhi Prison Rules and related guidelines do not prescribe grant of parole or furlough as decisive factors in such decisions. Therefore, the Sentence Review Board’s determinations are based on a wider set of considerations, not limited to the convict’s history of release on parole or furlough.”
The Court enunciated that the SRB is obligated to take into account the social context and socio-economic conditions of prisoners and convicts, including those who lack permanent residence or family support to facilitate Parole or Furlough.
“Notably, during furlough, the prisoners are considered to be serving their sentence, albeit outside the confines of the prison. This period is counted as part of the sentence, symbolizing the system’s confidence in their reformation. It allows them to experience freedom, reconnect with family, and find solace, reinforcing their journey towards rehabilitation”, it noted.
Furthermore, the Court emphasised that the Courts must adopt a compassionate approach to ensure that the isolation of prison life does not irreparably harm the mental health of prisoners or derail their rehabilitation and that a prisoner’s reformation must be given meaningful consideration, and Furlough should be considered as a tool to promote their reintegration into society.
“… taking into account the fact that the petitioner has remained incarcerated for about 22 years without a single complaint ever filed against him, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2023”, it also added.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and released the Petitioner on First Spell of Furlough for three weeks on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/-.
Cause Title- Raminder Singh @ Happy v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9083)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Anup Kumar Das, Uday Chauhan, and Aayushi Gupta.
Respondent: ASC Sanjeev Bhandari, Amicus Curiae Anish Dewan, Advocates Charu Sharma, Arjit Sharma, Vaibhav Vats, and Nikunj Bindal.
