Delhi High Court · 2025

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 4025/2025 SHIV KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran (DHCLSC), Mr. Akash Sachan, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Ms. Charu Sinha, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC (Crl) for State with SI Pancham Kumar, PS: Sarai Rohilla. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 04.12.2025 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the Order No. F.10(003798562)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2025/2862 dated 11.06.2025, passed by the competent authority and seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks. 2. Issue notice. Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, the learned ASC accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner herein was convicted in case arising out of FIR No. 1291/2014, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(m)/323/366/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. The criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 12:56:25 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10.09.2018. The Special Leave Petition has not been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the reminder of natural life. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, New Delhi and has already undergone incarceration of about 11 years in actual, without remission. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has been granted parole on two occasions in the past and he had also surrendered on time. Moreover, his jail conduct for the last one year has been reported as „satisfactory‟, and in fact, he has not been awarded any punishment in the last three years. It is argued that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 5. The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State argues that the overall jail conduct of the petitioner is „unsatisfactory‟ and he has been awarded multiple punishments in the jail. It is contended that the impugned rejection order correctly records that the petitioner is considered as „dangerous‟. Therefore, he prays that the present petition be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the State, and has perused material available on record. 7. In the present case, the petitioner had applied for furlough, but the same was rejected vide Order No. F.10(003798562)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2025/ 2862 dated 11.06.2025. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “In the present matter, the overall conduct of the convict is unsatisfactory having multiple jail punishments. Further considering the manner/gravity with which the crime was committed against a woman, the prisoner/convict is considered dangerous, hence this is not a fit case to reward the convict by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 12:56:25 granting him furlough.” 8. This Court notes that as per the nominal roll, the conduct of the present petitioner has been reported as „satisfactory‟ during last one year. Though his overall conduct is unsatisfactory due to multiple jail punishments warded to him, it is a matter of fact that the last such punishment was awarded in February, 2022, i.e. more than three years ago. 9. Concededly, the petitioner has been granted parole on 02 occasions in the past and he had not misused the liberty and surrendered on time before the jail authorities. 10. This Court‟s attention has also been drawn to Rules no. 1197 and 1200 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The said rules read as under: “1197. Parole and Furlough to inmates are progressive measures of correctional services. The release of prisoner on parole not only saves him from the evils of incarceration but also enables him to maintain social relations with his family and community. It also helps him to maintain and develop a sense of self-confidence. Continued contacts with family and the community sustain in him a hope for life. The release of prisoner on furlough motivates him to maintain good conduct and remain disciplined in the prison. 1200. The objectives of releasing a prisoner on parole and furlough are: i. To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with familial and social matters, ii. To enable him to maintain and develop his self- confidence, iii. To enable him to develop constructive hope and active interest in life, iv. To help him remain in touch with the developments in the outside world, v. To help him remain physiologically and psychologically healthy, vi. To enable him to overcome/recover from the stress and evil effects of incarceration, and vii. To motivate him to maintain good conduct and discipline in the prison...” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 12:56:25

11. It is evident that Rule 1197 and 1200 provide that the provision of furlough and parole are progressive measures of correctional services, and lay down the objectives of furlough and parole. This Court has also gone through Rule 1223 of Delhi Prison Rules which provides criteria for grant of furlough. The said rule reads as under: “1223. In order to be eligible to obtain furlough, the prisoner must fulfil the following criteria: - i. Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report and continues to maintain good conduct. ii. The prisoner should not be a habitual offender. iii. The prisoner should be a citizen of India.” 12. The annual good conduct of the petitioner for last three years has remained satisfactory; he is not a habitual offender; and has been in judicial custody for about 11 years. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case this Court is inclined to grant furlough to the petitioner for a period of three (03) weeks, subject to prior verification of the address of the petitioner by the State, on the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. ii. The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM during the period of furlough. iii. The petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent as well as SHO of local police station, on which he can he contacted if required. The said telephone This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 12:56:25 number shall be kept active and operational at all the times by the petitioner. iv. Immediately upon the expiry of period of furlough, the petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent. v. The period of furlough shall be counted from the day when the petitioner is released from jail. 13. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. 14. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and compliance. 15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 04, 2025/vc TD