Pintu @ Bintu v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order Ref. F.10(003488993)/CJ/LEGAL/PHQ/2024/M-1578 dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Office of Director General of Prisons, Tihar, and issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus seeking grant of first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks.

2. The petitioner herein is presently lodged in Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi-110093, and is serving life sentence awarded to him in case arising out of FIR No. 1196/2007, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, under Sections 302/307/452/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter „IPC‟).

3. The petitioner faced trial in FIR No. 1196/2007, and was convicted vide judgment dated 29.08.2012, and vide order on sentence dated 01.09.2012, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed Crl. A. No.220/2013 before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 21.07.2015.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 16 years. It is contended that the petitioner was released on furlough for three weeks and was later granted exemption from surrendering by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court; however, the petitioner and several other convicts were directed to surrender by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 01.10.2024. It is stated that the petitioner had surrendered on 06.10.2024, since he was informed late regarding the same by his counsel representing him before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Thus, due to a communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel, there was a delay of about 05 days in surrender. It is stated that the said delay was unintentional and the petitioner had immediately surrendered once he was informed about his surrender. It is further stated that the petitioner has faced a long incarceration and needs to combat inner stress and depression arising out of prolonged incarceration.

5. On the other hand, the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State argues the petitioner has not abided by the law and has drawn the attention of this Court to the furlough granted to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had surrendered 05 days late. Therefore, he prays that the present petition be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard arguments and perused the material available on record.

7. In the present case the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the concerned Competent Authority vide which his application for grant of furlough has been rejected. The order reads as under: i. That he was released on furlough for 03 weeks w.e.f 30.10.2023 to 20.11.2023 but he was granted stay from surrendering by the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(Crl.) No. 554/2023. Further, the Hon'ble Apex court has dismissed the petition of the convict on 01.10.2024 and directed to surrender but he surrendered late by 05 days on 06.10.2024. A punishment/warning was recorded against him for late surrender. ii. As per Standing Order 01/2019, if the convict happens to commit jail offence (jumped Parole/Furlough) and a punishment of Warning has been recorded against him, he shall be eligible for furlough after a gap of one year from the date of punishment. iii. As his overall conduct found to be unsatisfactory and furlough is purely an incentive for maintaining good conduct, therefore, his request for furlough cannot be acceded to.

8. The nominal roll has been called from the Jail Superintendent. As per the nominal roll, the petitioner herein has been granted furlough on 12 occasions and parole on 02 occasions in the past. He has been in judicial custody for more than 16 years without remission, and his overall conduct has been satisfactory. It is also to be noted that a punishment i.e. warning was awarded to him vide order dated 17.10.2024 for non-surrendering on time.

9. However, this Court also takes note of Rule 1178 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 which clearly lays down that an inmate shall be eligible for Annual Good Conduct Remission, and any warning given to him shall not be taken into account. The same is reproduced below: “...1178. Any prisoner, eligible for ordinary remission, who for a period of one year from the date of his sentence, or the date on which he was last punished (except by way of warning) for a prison offence, has not committed any prison offence, should be awarded 30 days annual good conduct remission by the Superintendent of the Prison in addition to any other remission. Explanation: - For the purposes of this rule, prison offences punished only with a warning, shall not be taken into account...”

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew this Court‟s attention to an order dated 07.06.2019 vide which the Standing Order No. 01/2019 was modified to the extent that in case a warning is issused to a convict, he shall be eligible for furlough.

11. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to Rules 1197 and 1200 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The said rules read as under:

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 selfconfidence, 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..."

12. It is evident that Rules 1197 and 1200 provide that the provision of furlough and parole are progressive and correctional measures, and lay down the objectives of furlough and parole. This Court has also gone through Rule 1223 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 which provides criteria for grant of furlough. The said rule reads as under: