Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dated 28-10-2022, whereby the petitioner’s application for the grant of furlough was rejected, Amit Bansal, J.*, opined it could not be presumed that the said convict would again commit a similar crime or create law and order problem in the society. The Court opined that the furlough was granted to a convict undergoing long term imprisonment where gruesome crimes had been committed and depriving furlough to a convict, who was undergoing long term imprisonment would be counterproductive to reformative approach and would also take away the motivation to maintain good conduct inside the jail. Thus, the Court held that the petitioner should be released on furlough for a period of two weeks from the date of his release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000.
Background
In an instant case, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 302, 201, 363 and 372(2)(f) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for committing rape and murder of a minor. Thereafter, the petitioner was awarded death sentence along with fine. The petitioner, then filed an appeal and the Division Bench of this Court ordered re-trial of the case. However, in the re-trial of the case, the petitioner was once again convicted and was awarded life imprisonment with no remission for a period of twenty-five years.
The petitioner filed an application dated 13-09-2022 for the grant of furlough, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 28-10-2022. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition to challenge the impugned order.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Sanjay Kumar Valmiki v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2120; Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 13 SCC 96 and Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and opined that it was no longer res integra that furlough was an incentive towards good jail conduct and the same could be granted even if the convict was not entitled to any remission and was awarded life imprisonment. The Court opined that in the present case, it was undisputed that the petitioner was convicted of a gruesome offence of committing rape and murder of minor and for that the petitioner was awarded life imprisonment without remission for a period of twenty-five years along with fine.
The Court opined that only on the basis that the convict had committed a gruesome crime many years ago, it could not be said that his temporary release on furlough would be against the interest of the society. It could not be presumed that the said convict would again commit a similar crime or create law and order problem in the society. There was no contradicting that the furlough was granted to convicts who had committed gruesome crimes and were undergoing long term imprisonment. The Court opined that depriving furlough to a convict, who was undergoing long term imprisonment would be counterproductive to reformative approach and would also take away the motivation to maintain good conduct inside the jail.
The Court opined that the total period of the petitioner’s incarceration was around twelve years, and a perusal of the nominal roll would show that the petitioner’s conduct in jail was satisfactory, and no other case was pending against the petitioner. Thus, the Court granted furlough to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to furnish the fresh address to the respondent within fifteen days, which should be verified by the respondent within fifteen days thereafter. Further, subject to the verification of the petitioner’s address, the petitioner should be released on furlough for a period of two weeks from the date of his release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent.
The Court stated that the petitioner should not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the Court and should reside at the given address and should also provide his mobile number to the concerned Jail Superintendent and concerned Station House Officer (‘SHO’) at the time of release, which should be kept in working condition at all times. Further, the Court stated that the petitioner should appear before the SHO, Police Station every third day between 11:00 AM to 11:30 AM to mark his presence and he should not be kept waiting for longer than an hour for this purpose. Further, the petitioner should positively surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent on the expiry period of two weeks from the date of his release.
[Sanjay Kumar Valmiki v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7335, decided on 17-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Amit Bansal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Faraz Maqbool (DHCLSC) and Chinmayi Chatterjee, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State with Kunal Mittal, Arjit Sharma and Rishika, Advocates; SI Jogender, PS Maurya Enclave
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
