Sandeep Alias Sandy vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 29 April, 2026

April 30, 2026

Delhi High Court

Sandeep Alias Sandy vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 29 April, 2026

1. These petitions raise a common challenge to NOTE-2 of Rule
1212 of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as
„Rules‟) and NOTE-(1) to Rule 1224 of the Rules. They are, therefore,
being taken up together for disposal by way of this common judgment.

SPONSORED

2. NOTE:-(2) of Rule 1212 reads as under:-

“(2) Simultaneous parole to co-accused is
ordinarily not permissible, however, in
exceptional circumstances competent authority
may consider for reasons in writing for
granting parole to co-accused who are family
members.”

3. NOTE:-(1) of Rule 1224 reads as under:-

“Note: – (1) Simultaneous furlough to co-
accused convicts are ordinarily not
permissible. However, when co-accused
convicts are family members, simultaneous
release may be considered in exceptional
circumstances only.”

4. The challenge to the above Rules stems out of the rejection, by
the order dated 05.03.2024, of the application filed by Sandeep @
Sandy, petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 1832/2024, for being released on
furlough, on the ground that his co-convict, who is not a blood relation
of the petitioner, has been granted furlough, and in accordance with
Note:-(1) of Rule 1224 of the above Rules, simultaneous release of co-
convict on furlough is not permissible.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 2 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

5. Briefly stated, the petitioners are amongst six accused persons
who were convicted by the learned Trial Court vide judgement dated
03.02.2018 in a case arising out of FIR bearing no. 862/2016
registered under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 („IPC‟) at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, New Delhi. The appeals
preferred by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence,
being Criminal Appeal No. 399/2018 titled Sandeep@ Sandy v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Criminal Appeal No. 391/2018 titled
Vijay Dahiya v. The State, were partly allowed by this Court vide a
common Judgment dated 26.06.2023. While the conviction of the
petitioners was upheld, the sentence awarded was modified to
imprisonment for life with minimum 20 years of actual imprisonment
without any remission. The fine amount and default sentence as
awarded by the learned Trial Court were sustained. The Special
Leave Petition filed there-against, being SLP (Crl.) No. 16306/2023,
was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.12.2023.

6. The present challenge has arisen as the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.)
1832/2024 has been denied furlough on the ground that he cannot be
released on furlough simultaneously with his co-accused, while the
petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) 945/2025 has alleged that he has also been
unable to avail furlough since 2024 on account of the same restriction.
They therefore, impugn the above two provisions of the Rules, which
they contend are being interpreted as completely prohibiting release of
co-accused persons simultaneously on parole/furlough.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 3 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR
THE PETITIONERS:

7. The learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the right of
a convict for grant of parole or furlough, if otherwise eligible for the
same, cannot be curtailed by the Impugned Rules. They submit that
the same would defeat the very object and purpose for which the
provisions for grant of parole and furlough have been made. In
support of their submissions, they have placed reliance on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., (2017) 15 SCC 55; and Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 13
SCC 96, and of this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
2012: DHC:2942-DB.

8. They submit that the Rules need to be read down so as to permit
simultaneous release of co-accused on furlough unless there are other
reasons not to do so, to bring them in conformity with the object of
granting parole/furlough to a convict. In support, they placed reliance
on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs
(Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors., (2018) 9
SCC 1; District Mining Officer & Ors v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. &
Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 358; S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt),
(2007) 3 SCC 169; Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India and Ors., (2024) 13 SCC 241; and,
BR Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 9 SCC 700.

9. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 4 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
of India & Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 641, and Supreme Court Employees’
Welfare Assn. v. Union of India & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 187, they
submit that a subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of
immunity which is enjoyed by a Statute passed by a competent
legislature, and must be read in conformity with the primary Statute
and the Fundamental Rights so as to prevent it from being declared
ultra vires.

10. They submit that an interpretation of the Rules which results in
unjust consequences or defeats the legislative object, should be
avoided and therefore, the Rules must be interpreted as giving the
power to release co-accused simultaneously on parole/furlough, if
otherwise they are so entitled. In support of said submission, they
placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Assistant
Commissioner, Gadag Sub-Division, Gadag, v. Mathapathi
Basavannewwa & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 355, and Commissioner of
Customs (Import) (supra).

11. They submit that if the above Rules are to be strictly enforced,
given the number of co-accused, the petitioners may never get a
chance to be released on furlough. They demonstrate it in form of
chart, detailed reference to which may not be required to be made in
the present judgment.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL
STANDING COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Standing Counsels for
the respondents submit that parole/furlough cannot be claimed as a

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 5 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
fundamental right; rather they are granted basis the discretionary
power vested in the competent authority. In support, they placed
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat
and Another v. Narayan (2021) 20 SCC 304, and Atbir (supra).

13. They submit that the grant of parole/furlough being
discretionary, is governed by the Rules which inter alia have the
object of balancing two competing interests, that is, reformation of the
convict and the public policy of securing the interest of the society,
and, therefore, the impugned condition/Rules prohibiting co-accused
being released on parole/furlough simultaneously, is justified. In
support, they placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, (2006)
4 SCC 776.

14. They submit that the object of the Impugned Rules is to prevent
any law and order situation which may be created on simultaneous
release of co-accused and therefore, only in exceptional cases of
family members being co-accused, are they entitled to be released on
parole/furlough simultaneously, if they otherwise make out the
required conditions.

15. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Mohd. Hanif Qureshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731,
they submit that the Rules have been framed keeping in mind the
Model Prison Rules, 2016 and with the experience gained and
therefore, do not deserve to be set aside. In support, they also placed
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Charanjit Lal

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 6 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
Chowdhary v. Union of India & Ors., 1950 SCC 833; BR
Enterprises (supra); and, Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning
And Weaving Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 139.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.

17. At the outset, we would note that the distinction between the
parole and furlough has been explained by the Supreme Court in its
judgment in Asfaq (supra), as under:

“11. There is a subtle distinction between
parole and furlough. A parole can be defined
as conditional release of prisoners i.e. an
early release of a prisoner, conditional on
good behaviour and regular reporting to the
authorities for a set period of time. It can also
be defined as a form of conditional pardon by
which the convict is released before the
expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is
granted for good behaviour on the condition
that parolee regularly reports to a supervising
officer for a specified period. Such a release of
the prisoner on parole can also be temporarily
on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it
is to be treated as mere suspension of the
sentence for time being, keeping the quantum
of sentence intact. Release on parole is
designed to afford some relief to the prisoners
in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles
are normally granted in certain situations
some of which may be as follows:

(i) a member of the prisoner’s family has
died or is seriously ill or the prisoner
himself is seriously ill; or

(ii) the marriage of the prisoner himself,
his son, daughter, grandson,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 7 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
granddaughter, brother, sister, sister’s
son or daughter is to be celebrated; or

(iii) the temporary release of the
prisoner is necessary for ploughing,
sowing or harvesting or carrying on any
other agricultural operation of his land
or his father’s undivided land actually in
possession of the prisoner; or

(iv) it is desirable to do so for any other
sufficient cause;

(v) parole can be granted only after a
portion of sentence is already served;

(vi) if conditions of parole are not
abided by the parolee he may be
returned to serve his sentence in prison,
such conditions may be such as those of
committing a new offence; and

(vii) parole may also be granted on the
basis of aspects related to health of
convict himself.

12. Many State Governments have formulated
guidelines on parole in order to bring out
objectivity in the decision making and to
decide as to whether parole needs to be
granted in a particular case or not. Such a
decision in those cases is taken in accordance
with the guidelines framed. Guidelines of some
of the States stipulate two kinds of paroles,
namely, custody parole and regular parole.

“Custody parole” is generally granted in
emergent circumstances like:

(i) death of a family member;

(ii) marriage of a family member;

(iii) serious illness of a family member;
or

(iv) any other emergent circumstances.

13. As far as “regular parole” is concerned, it
may be given in the following cases:

(i) serious illness of a family member;

(ii) critical conditions in the family on
account of accident or death of a family
member;

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 8 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

(iii) marriage of any member of the
family of the convict;

(iv) delivery of a child by the wife of the
convict if there is no other family
member to take care of the spouse at
home;

(v) serious damage to life or property of
the family of the convict including
damage caused by natural calamities;

(vi) to maintain family and social ties;

(vii) to pursue the filing of a special
leave petition before this Court against
a judgment delivered by the High Court
convicting or upholding the conviction,
as the case may be.

14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief
release from the prison. It is conditional and is
given in case of long-term imprisonment. The
period of sentence spent on furlough by the
prisoners need not be undergone by him as is
done in the case of parole. Furlough is
granted as a good conduct remission.

15. A convict, literally speaking, must remain
in jail for the period of sentence or for rest of
his life in case he is a life convict. It is in this
context that his release from jail for a short
period has to be considered as an opportunity
afforded to him not only to solve his personal
and family problems but also to maintain his
links with society. Convicts too must breathe
fresh air for at least some time provided they
maintain good conduct consistently during
incarceration and show a tendency to reform
themselves and become good citizens. Thus,
redemption and rehabilitation of such
prisoners for good of societies must receive
due weightage while they are undergoing
sentence of imprisonment.

16. This Court, through various
pronouncements, has laid down the differences

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 9 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
between parole and furlough, few of which are
as under:

(i) Both parole and furlough are
conditional release.

(ii) Parole can be granted in case of
short-term imprisonment whereas in
furlough it is granted in case of long-
term imprisonment.

(iii) Duration of parole extends to one
month whereas in the case of furlough it
extends to fourteen days maximum.

(iv) Parole is granted by Divisional
Commissioner and furlough is granted
by the Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons.

(v) For parole, specific reason is
required, whereas furlough is meant for
breaking the monotony of imprisonment.

(vi) The term of imprisonment is not
included in the computation of the term
of parole, whereas it is vice versa in
furlough.

(vii) Parole can be granted number of
times whereas there is limitation in the
case of furlough.

(viii) Since furlough is not granted for
any particular reason, it can be denied
in the interest of the society.”

18. The term „Furlough‟ is defined by Section 2(h) of the Delhi
Prison Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), as under:

“(h) „Furlough‟ means leave as a reward
granted to a convicted prisoner who has been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five
years or more and has undergone three years
thereof.”

19. Furthermore, Rule 1199 of the Rules has also explained the
meaning of furlough, as under:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 10 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

“1199. Furlough means release of a prisoner
for a short period of time after a gap of certain
qualified numbers of years of incarceration by
way of motivation for maintaining good
conduct and to remain disciplined in the
prison. This is purely an incentive for good
conduct in the prison. Therefore, the period
spent by the prisoner outside the prison on
furlough shall be counted towards his
sentence.”

20. Though there is no definition of „parole‟ in the Act, Rule 1198
of the Rules has explained the said concept as under:

“1198. Parole means temporary release of a
prisoner for short period so that he may
maintain social relations with his family and
the community in order to fulfill his familial
and social obligations and responsibilities. It
is an opportunity for a prisoner to maintain
regular contact with outside world so that he
may keep himself updated with the latest
developments in the society. It is however
clarified that the period spent by a prisoner
outside the prison while on parole in no way is
a concession so far as his sentence is concern.
The prisoner has to spend extra time in prison
for the period spent by him outside the Jail on
parole.”

21. As far as the object of grant of parole and furlough is
concerned, Rules 1197 and 1200 of the Rules explain the same 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

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 11 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
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.

xxx
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.”

22. Similarly, the Model Prison Manual, 2016, spells out the object
of grant of parole and furlough in Rule 19.01 as under:

“19.01 Parole and furlough to inmates are
progressive measures of correctional services.
The release of a prisoner on parole not only
saves him from the evils of incarceration but
also enables him to maintain social relations
with his family and the community. It also
helps him 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.
The provisions relating to release of the
prisoner on parole and furlough should be
liberalised to help a prisoner maintain a
harmonious relationship with his family and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 12 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
the society and to be of good conduct during
the period of incarceration. The privilege of
release on parole and furlough should, of
course, be allowed to selective prisoners on
the basis of well-defined norms of eligibility
and propriety.”

23. In Asfaq (supra), the Supreme Court also explained the object
of grant of parole and furlough as under:

“17. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows
that amongst the various grounds on which
parole can be granted, the most important
ground, which stands out, is that a prisoner
should be allowed to maintain family and
social ties. For this purpose, he has to come
out for some time so that he is able to maintain
his family and social contact. This reason finds
justification in one of the objectives behind
sentence and punishment, namely, reformation
of the convict. The theory of criminology,
which is largely accepted, underlines that the
main objectives which a State intends to
achieve by punishing the culprit are:

deterrence, prevention, retribution and
reformation. When we recognise reformation
as one of the objectives, it provides
justification for letting of even the life convicts
for short periods, on parole, in order to afford
opportunities to such convicts not only to solve
their personal and family problems but also to
maintain their links with the society. Another
objective which this theory underlines is that
even such convicts have right to breathe fresh
air, albeit for (sic short) periods. These
gestures on the part of the State, along with
other measures, go a long way for redemption
and rehabilitation of such prisoners. They are
ultimately aimed for the good of the society
and, therefore, are in public interest.

18. The provisions of parole and furlough,
thus, provide for a humanistic approach

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 13 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
towards those lodged in jails. Main purpose of
such provisions is to afford to them an
opportunity to solve their personal and family
problems and to enable them to maintain their
links with society. Even citizens of this country
have a vested interest in preparing offenders
for successful re-entry into society. Those who
leave prison without strong networks of
support, without employment prospects,
without a fundamental knowledge of the
communities to which they will return, and
without resources, stand a significantly higher
chance of failure. When offenders revert to
criminal activity upon release, they frequently
do so because they lack hope of merging into
society as accepted citizens. Furloughs or
parole can help prepare offenders for
success.”

24. Having noted the above object and purpose of grant of
parole/furlough as being in conformity with the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme
Court in Asfaq (supra) also highlighted the balance that needs to be
achieved between conflicting rights of the convicts vis-a-vis the
society as a whole, by observing as under:

“19. Having noted the aforesaid public
purpose in granting parole or furlough,
ingrained in the reformation theory of
sentencing, other competing public interest
has also to be kept in mind while deciding as
to whether in a particular case parole or
furlough is to be granted or not. This public
interest also demands that those who are
habitual offenders and may have the tendency
to commit the crime again after their release
on parole or have the tendency to become a
threat to the law and order of the society,
should not be released on parole. This aspect
takes care of other objectives of sentencing,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 14 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
namely, deterrence and prevention. This side
of the coin is the experience that great number
of crimes are committed by the offenders who
have been put back in the street after
conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to
whether a particular prisoner deserves to be
released on parole or not, the aforesaid
aspects have also to be kept in mind. To put it
tersely, the authorities are supposed to
address the question as to whether the convict
is such a person who has the tendency to
commit such a crime or he is showing
tendency to reform himself to become a good
citizen.

20. Thus, 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 behaviour
shows that they aspire to live as law-abiding
citizens. Thus, parole programme should be
used as a tool to shape such adjustments.

21. To sum up, in introducing penal reforms,
the State that runs the administration on
behalf of the society and for the benefit of the
society at large cannot be unmindful of
safeguarding the legitimate rights of the
citizens in regard to their security in the
matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason
that in introducing such reforms, the
authorities cannot be oblivious of the
obligation to the society to render it immune
from those who are prone to criminal
tendencies and have proved their susceptibility
to indulge in criminal activities by being found
guilty (by a court) of having perpetrated a
criminal act. One of the discernible purposes
of imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to
render the society immune from the criminal
for a specified period. It is, therefore,
understandable that while meting out humane

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 15 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
treatment to the convicts, care has to be taken
to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not
result in cruelty to the society. Naturally
enough, the authorities would be anxious to
ensure that the convict who is released on
furlough does not seize the opportunity to
commit another crime when he is at large for
the time being under the furlough leave
granted to him by way of a measure of penal
reform.”

25. As far as the Rules are concerned, Rule 1208 and 1210 of the
Rules give the conditions on which parole may be granted by the
Competent Authority. They are reproduced herein-under:

“1208. Subject to fulfillment of conditions
stipulated in Rule 1210 below, it would be
open to the Competent authority to consider
applications for parole on the grounds such
as:-

                                                   i.      Serious illness of a family
                                                   member.
                                                   ii.     Critical conditions in the family
                                                   on account of accident or death of a
                                                   family member.
                                                   iii.    Marriage of any member of the
                                                   family of the convict;
                                                   iv.      Delivery of a child by the
                                                   legally wedded wife of the convict.
                                                   v.      Serious damage to life or

property of the family of the convict
including damage caused by natural
calamities.

                                                   vi.     Sowing and harvesting of crops.
                                                   vii.     To maintain family and social
                                                   ties.

viii. To pursue the filing of a Special
Leave Petition before the Supreme Court
of India against a judgment delivered by
the High Court convicting or upholding
the conviction, as the case may be.

xxx
1210. In order to be eligible for release on

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 16 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
parole in terms of Rule above:-

I. A convict must have served at least the
period of one year in prison excluding under-
trial period and any period covered by
remission. However, inexceptional cases,
where the prisoner has spent more than 3
years as under trial period or half of the
sentence of the punishment awarded as under
trial then his parole application may be
considered, if he has spent at least 6 months in
prison as convict.

II. The conduct of the Prisoner who has been
awarded major punishment for any prison
offence should have been uniformly good for
last two years from the date of application and
the conduct of Prisoner who has been awarded
minor punishment or no punishment for any
prison offence in prison should have been
uniformly good for last one year from the date
of application.

III. During the period of release on parole or
furlough, if granted earlier, the convict should
not have committed any crime.

IV. The convict should not have violated any
terms and conditions of the parole or furlough
granted previously.

V. A minimum of six months ought to have
elapsed from the date of surrender on the
conclusion of the previous parole availed. In
emergency, parole may be considered even if
minimum period of six months has not elapsed
from the date of termination of previous
Parole. The emergency may include delivery
of a child by the wife of the convict, death of a
family member, marriage of children, terminal
illness of family members and natural
calamities.”

26. Similarly, Rule 1220 of the Rules gives the condition to be
fulfilled for being granted furlough, as under:

“1220. A prisoner who is sentenced to 5 years
or more of rigorous imprisonment and has

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 17 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
undergone 3 years imprisonment after
conviction with unblemished record become
eligible for grant of furlough.”

27. Rules 1211, 1224 and 1225 of the Rules give the categories of
prisoners who shall not be entitled to be released on parole/furlough.
They are quoted herein-below:

“1211. In the following cases, parole shall not
be granted, except, if in the discretion of the
competent authority special circumstances
exist for grant of parole;

I. Prisoners convicted under sedition, terrorist
activities and NDPS Act.

II. Prisoners whose immediate presence in the
society may be considered dangerous or
otherwise prejudicial to public peace and
order by the District Magistrate of his home
district or there exists any other reasonable
ground such as a pending investigation in a
case involving serious crime.

III. Prisoners who are considered dangerous
or have been involved in serious prison
violence like assault, outbreak of riot, mutiny
or escape, or rearrested who absconded while
released on parole or furlough or who have
been found to be instigating serious violation
of prison discipline as per the reports in his/
her annual good conduct report.
IV. Convicted foreigners subject to prior
approval of Ministry of Home Affairs &
Ministry of External Affairs and having valid
permission to stay in India.

V. Prisoners suffering from mental illness, if
not certified by the Medical Officer to have
recovered,
VI. If the prisoner is convicted of murder after
rape;

VII. If the prisoner is convicted under POCSO;
VIII. If prisoner is convicted for multiple
murders whether in single case or several
cases.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 18 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

IX. If prisoner is convicted for Dacoity with
murder.

X. If prisoner is convicted for Murder after
kidnapping for ransom.

XI. If the prisoner is convicted under
Prevention of Corruption Act.

XII. If the case is investigated by the Central
Bureau of Investigation or Central Agency.

xxx
1224. The following categories of prisoners
shall not be eligible for release on furlough:

i. Prisoners convicted under sedition, terrorist
activities and NDPS Act.

ii. Prisoners whose immediate presence in the
society may be considered dangerous or
otherwise prejudicial to public peace and
order by the District Magistrate of his home
district or there exists any other reasonable
ground such as a pending investigation in a
case involving serious crime.

iii. Prisoners who are considered dangerous
or have been involved in serious prison
violence like assault, outbreak of riot, mutiny
or escape, or rearrested who absconded while
released on parole or furlough or who have
been found to be instigating serious violation
of prison discipline as per the reports in
his/her annual good conduct report.
iv. Convicted foreigners.

v. Prisoners suffering from mental illness, if
not certified by the Medical Officer to have
recovered.

Note: – (1) Simultaneous furlough to co-
accused convicts are ordinarily not
permissible. However, when co-accused
convicts are family members, simultaneous
release may be considered in exceptional
circumstances only.

Note: – (2) If an appeal of a convict is pending
before the High Court or the period for filing
an appeal before the High Court has not
expired, furlough will not be granted and it
would be open to the convict to seek
appropriate directions from the Court.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 19 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

1225. That the prisoners convicted of murder
after rape, under POCSO Act, convicted for
multiple murders whether in single case or
several cases, Dacoity with murder and
murder after kidnapping for ransom, may be
considered by the competent authority on the
following parameters:-

(i) Deputy Inspector General (Range) of
prisons shall put specific recommendation for
considering the said case.

(ii) Social Welfare/ Probation officer‟s report/
recommendation shall be considered while
deciding such furlough application.

(iii) Subject to the conditions/rules mentioned
in Rule 1221 to Rule 1223 above, the spell of
furlough for such category would be as
follows:

(a). only one spell of 3 weeks in first year of
eligibility.

(b). only two spells of furlough, one for 3
weeks and other for 2 weeks in the second
convict year of eligibility.

(c). Three spells of furlough like all other
convicts in the subsequent years.”

28. The Supreme Court in Asfaq (supra) was considering the
challenge to the rejection of grant of parole on the ground that the
appellant therein had been convicted under the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The Supreme Court
noted that in the matter of grant of parole/furlough, a balance needs to
be achieved between the competing interests of the prisoners vis-a-vis
the society, and held that mere nature of the offence committed by the
convict should not be the factor to outright deny the parole and the
Competent Authority must keep in view the other factors as well such
as the period already undergone by the convict, his conduct in jail,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 20 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
whether the convict is habitual offender or is otherwise considered
highly dangerous or prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity etc.
We quote from the judgment as under:

“22. Another vital aspect that needs to be
discussed is as to whether there can be any
presumption that a person who is convicted of
serious or heinous crime is to be, ipso facto,
treated as a hardened criminal. Hardened
criminal would be a person for whom it has
become a habit or way of life and such a
person would necessarily tend to commit
crimes again and again. Obviously, if a person
has committed a serious offence for which he
is convicted, but at the same time it is also
found that it is the only crime he has
committed, he cannot be categorised as a
hardened criminal. In his case consideration
should be as to whether he is showing the
signs to reform himself and become a good
citizen or there are circumstances which
would indicate that he has a tendency to
commit the crime again or that he would be a
threat to the society. Mere nature of the
offence committed by him should not be a
factor to deny the parole outrightly. Wherever
a person convicted has suffered incarceration
for a long time, he can be granted temporary
parole, irrespective of the nature of offence for
which he was sentenced. We may hasten to put
a rider here viz. in those cases where a person
has been convicted for committing a serious
offence, the competent authority, while
examining such cases, can be well advised to
have stricter standards in mind while judging
their cases on the parameters of good conduct,
habitual offender or while judging whether he
could be considered highly dangerous or
prejudicial to the public peace and
tranquillity, etc.

23. There can be no cavil in saying that a
society that believes in the worth of the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 21 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
individuals can have the quality of its belief
judged, at least in part, by the quality of its
prisons and services and recourse made
available to the prisoners. Being in a civilised
society organised with law and a system as
such, it is essential to ensure for every citizen
a reasonably dignified life. If a person
commits any crime, it does not mean that by
committing a crime, he ceases to be a human
being and that he can be deprived of those
aspects of life which constitute human dignity.
For a prisoner all fundamental rights are an
enforceable reality, though restricted by the
fact of imprisonment. [See Sunil Batra
(2) v. State (UT of Delhi) [Sunil Batra
(2) v. State (UT of Delhi), (1980) 3 SCC 488 :

                                             1980       SCC      (Cri)      777]     , Maneka
                                             Gandhi v. Union          of       India [Maneka

Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248]
and Charles Sobraj v. Supt., Central
Jail [Charles Sobraj v. Supt., Central Jail,
(1978) 4 SCC 104 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 542] .]

24. It is also to be kept in mind that by the time
an application for parole is moved by a
prisoner, he would have spent some time in the
jail. During this period, various reformatory
methods must have been applied. We can take
judicial note of this fact, having regard to such
reformation facilities available in modern
jails. One would know by this time as to
whether there is a habit of relapsing into crime
in spite of having administered correctional
treatment. This habit known as “recidivism”

reflects the fact that the correctional therapy
has not brought (sic any change) in the mind
of the criminal. It also shows that criminal is
hard core who is beyond correctional therapy.
If the correctional therapy has not made in
itself, in a particular case, such a case can be
rejected on the aforesaid ground i.e. on its
merits.

25. We are not oblivious of the fact that there

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 22 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
may be hard core criminals who by reason of
their crime and the methods of dealing with
the crime, form associations, loyalties and
attitudes which tend to persist. There may be
even peer pressure when such convicts are out
to commit those crimes again. There may be
pressure of being ostracised from delinquent
groups which may lead them to commit the
crime again. Persistence in criminal behaviour
may also be due to personality traits, most
frequently due to pathological traits of
personality, such as mental defectiveness,
emotional instability, mental conflicts,
egocentrism and psychosis. In regard to
relapse or recidivism, Frank Exner, a noted
criminologist and sociologist, points out that
the chances of repeating increase with the
number of previous arrests and the interval
between the last and the next offence becomes
shortened as the number of previous crimes
progresses [ Frank Exner, Kriminologie, pp.
115-120] . The purpose of the criminological
study is the prognosis of the improvable
occasional offenders and that of the
irredeemable habitual offender and hard core
criminal. To differentiate the recidivists from
non-recidivists and dangerous and hard-core
criminals from occasional criminals had been
enumerated by Exner in the following
flowsheet:

(i) Hereditary weakness in the family life.

(ii) Increasing tempo of criminality.

(iii) Bad conditions in the parental home.

(iv) Bad school progress (especially in
deportment and industriousness).

(v) Failure to complete studies once begun.

(vi) Irregular work (work shyness).

(vii) Onset of criminality before 18 years of
age.

(viii) More than four previous sentences.

(ix) Quick relapse of crime.

(x) Interlocal criminality (mobility).

(xi) Psychopathic personality (diagnosis of
institutional doctor).

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 23 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

(xii) Alcoholism.

(xiii) Release from institution before 36 years
of age.

(xiv) Bad conduct in the institution.

(xv) Bad social and family relations during
period of release.

At the same time, as criminality is the
expression of the “symptom” of certain
disorder in the offenders, they can be easily
reformed if they are rightly diagnosed and
correct treatment is administered to them.”

29. In Atbir (supra), the Supreme Court while considering the
entitlement for being released on furlough of a convict whose sentence
of death had been reduced to life imprisonment with a stipulation that
he would remain in prison „for the whole of the remainder of his
natural life without parole and there shall be no remission of the term
of imprisonment‟, taking note of the Rules, held as under:

“20. Having examined the matter in its
totality, we find it difficult to agree with the
reasoning in the order impugned and with the
contentions that once it has been provided by
the Hon’ble President of India that the
appellant would remain in prison for whole of
the remainder of his natural life without
parole and without remission in the term of
imprisonment, all his other rights, particularly
those emanating from good jail conduct, as
available in the 2018 Rules stand foreclosed.

21. As has rightly been pointed out, in the
2018 Rules, the eligibility requirement to
obtain furlough is of “3 annual good conduct
reports” and not “3 annual good conduct
remissions”. The expressions employed in
clause (I) of Rule 1223 of the 2018 Rules are
that the prisoner ought to maintain “Good
conduct in the prison and should have earned
rewards in last 3 annual good conduct report”

and further that he should continue “to

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 24 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
maintain good conduct”. Even these
expressions cannot be read to mean that the
prisoner ought to earn “good conduct
remissions”. In the scheme of the 2018 Rules it
cannot be said that earning rewards is
equivalent to earning remissions.

22. It has also rightly been pointed out that
when furlough is an incentive towards good
jail conduct, even if the person is otherwise
not to get any remission and has to remain in
prison for whole of the remainder of his
natural life, that does not, as a corollary,
mean that his right to seek furlough is
foreclosed. Even if he would spend some time
on furlough, that will not come to his aid so as
to seek remission because of the fact that he
has to remain in prison for whole of the
remainder of his natural life.

23. We may examine the matter from yet
another angle and perspective. The
Presidential Order dated 15-11-2012 bars
parole as also remission but significantly,
there is no mention of the treatment of
entitlement towards furlough. Noteworthy it is
that parole is akin to temporary suspension of
execution of sentence. There cannot be any
temporary suspension of execution of sentence
qua the appellant inasmuch as the sentence
awarded to him has to run in perpetuity and
during the whole of his natural life. Moreover,
for parole, conduct is not a decisive factor. In
fact, some cause or event predominantly
decides the question whether the person is to
be admitted to parole or not? When the
appellant is to undergo the sentence for whole
of his natural life, any cause or event may not
give him any right to claim parole.

24. However, in contradistinction to parole, in
furlough, the prisoner is deemed to be serving
the sentence inasmuch as the period of
furlough is not reduced from actual serving
period. And, the conduct is predominantly
decisive of entitlement towards furlough. Thus,
even if the appellant would be on furlough, he

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 25 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
would be deemed to be serving the sentence
for all time to come.

xxx

33. Thus, looking to the concept of furlough
and the reasons for extending this concession
to a prisoner lead us to hold that even if a
prisoner like the appellant is not to get any
remission in his sentence and has to serve the
sentence of imprisonment throughout his
natural life, neither the requirements of his
maintaining good conduct are whittled down
nor the reformative approach and incentive for
good conduct cease to exist in his relation.
Thus, if he maintains good conduct, furlough
cannot be denied as a matter of course.

34. We would hasten to observe that whether
furlough is to be granted in a given case or not
is a matter entirely different. Taking the case
of the appellant, he is a person convicted of
multiple murders. Therefore, the requirement
of Rule 1225 of the 2018 Rules may come into
operation. However, it cannot be said that his
case would never be considered for furlough.
Whether he is to be given furlough on the
parameters delineated therein or not is a
matter to be examined by the authorities in
accordance with law.

35. In view of the above, while disapproving
blanket denial of furlough to the appellant in
the orders impugned, we would leave the case
of the appellant for grant of furlough open for
examination by the authorities concerned in
accordance with law.”

30. From the above, it is apparent that, as was held by the Supreme
Court in Suresh Pandurang Darvakar (supra) and Narayan (supra),
while there can be no cavil to the legal plea that parole and furlough
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the power vested with
the competent authority to grant parole/furlough is discretionary in
nature, however, from the above discussion, it is also evident that

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 26 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
parole and furlough also serve the objective of having a humanitarian
approach towards those lodged in jail. This is a salutary objective in
conformity with the Fundamental Rights of a prisoner under Article
21 of the Constitution and the Human Rights of such a prisoner.
Therefore, a balance needs to be maintained between the rights and
duty of the State, on the one hand, to ensure that a person who has
violated law and is punished with imprisonment undergoes such
punishment and does not cause further threat to society, and on the
other hand, the right of such prisoner to live a life of dignity by having
a chance to maintain his social ties and to be able to breathe free air,
albeit for some time.

31. Applying the above principles, in case NOTE:-(2) of Rule 1212
and NOTE:-(1) of the Rule 1224 are to be read as completely
prohibiting simultaneous parole/furlough being granted to co-accused
persons, it may defeat the very object for which the provisions of
parole and furlough have been introduced. As explained by the learned
counsels for the petitioners, and not seriously disputed by the learned
counsels for the respondents, in the present petitions itself, there can
be a grave possibility that the petitioners would not get an opportunity
to be released on furlough for years together as one or the other co-
accused may have been released on parole or furlough at the same
time.

32. The said provisions, therefore, advisedly use the expression
“ordinarily”, which in itself implies that while there is discretion to
grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to a co-accused, “ordinarily” it

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 27 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
is not permissible. Therefore, while there is no complete embargo on
the Competent Authority to grant simultaneous parole/furlough to co-
accused persons, however, ordinarily the Competent Authority should
ensure that simultaneous parole/furlough is not granted to co-accused
persons.

33. Grant of parole being for specific reasons, in case such reasons
are being made out by the co-accused, parole can be granted
simultaneously to the co-accused. Similarly, in case there are large
number of co-accused and it is otherwise not possible to grant
furlough to such co-accused at different times, the furlough can be
granted to co-accused simultaneously.

34. In considering the application for parole/furlough, the
Competent Authority would keep in view, apart from other relevant
circumstances, whether grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to co-
accused is a threat of them combining together to commit fresh crime
or threaten witnesses or victims or such other like relevant
circumstances. The Competent Authority may also examine whether
any such threat can be averted by imposing conditions on such co-
accused.

35. As far as the mention in the Impugned Rules of the grant of
simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused who are family members,
the same is only to highlight one such condition where simultaneous
parole/furlough can be granted to co-accused, that is, where they are
family members. Mere mention of this exception, however, cannot
curtail the general permissible provisions contained in the Impugned

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 28 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17
Rules. The Impugned Rules are only to restrict and not prohibit the
simultaneous grant of parole/furlough to the co-accused.

36. In view of the above, we dispose of these petitions by clarifying
that there is no prohibition in the Competent Authority granting
simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused, however, the same is
restricted and the Competent Authority while considering such
application would examine the same more strictly in accordance with
the Rules and keeping in view the competing objectives as have been
explained by us hereinabove. The challenge laid by the petitioners to
the above Rules, therefore, has no merit.

37. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

38. There is no order as to costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

APRIL 29, 2026/Arya/ik

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL)1832/2024 & W.P.(CRL) 945/2025 Page 29 of 29
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:29.04.2026
18:46:17

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Sandeep Alias Sandy vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 29 April, 2026

Delhi High Court