Manoj Kumar Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 03.12.2022 whereby the application for furlough was dismissed and further seeking his release on furlough for a period of 3 weeks.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was denied furlough vide impugned order dated 03.12.2022 only on the ground that the petitioner did not surrender when he was released on parole in the year 2012. It is further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is good and he was also awarded good conduct certificates by jail authorities. It is further submitted that necessary requisite for granting furlough is 3 good conduct remissions which the petitioner has already earned, in fact, the petitioner has earned 7 good conduct remissions even after his re-arrest. It is further submitted that furlough is allowed even after the conviction in various cases. It is also submitted that the alleged crime committed by the petitioner were way back in 2015 and thereafter petitioner has maintained good conduct and earned these 7 good conduct remissions. It is further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since year 2000 and has undergone more than 19 years in custody and has earned approximately 4 years of remission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the orders passed by this Court in Satender alias Gajender V. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) in W.P.(CRL) 221/2022 and Rajkumar alias Bhola V. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) in W.P.(CRL) 25/2023.

3. On the other hand, learned ASC appearing for the State has argued on the lines of the status report and has opposed the present petition on the ground that during the period when he was released on parole, first, he jumped the parole and did not surrender; second, he committed an offence for which an FIR bearing no. 453/2015 under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered and, thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested. It is further submitted by him that another case bearing FIR No. 444/2015, under Sections 328/379/34 IPC was also registered against him while he was absconding parole, hence on this ground alone furlough cannot be granted to petitioner. It is further submitted that once a person has jumped furlough or parole, he is never eligible for grant of furlough. It is further submitted that overall conduct of the petitioner has not been satisfactory.

4. In the instant case, the petitioner has not availed the benefit of furlough for the last 8 years since 27.07.2015 and has undergone sentence for more than 23 years including remission. The conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and he has earned 7 good conduct remissions except that he jumped parole and was re-arrested on 27.07.2015.

5. For further adjudication, reliance can be placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 15 SCC 55. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

takes care of other objectives of sentencing, 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 behavior shows that they aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, parole programme should be used as a tool to shape such adjustments."

6. As far as the contention of the learned ASC for the State with regard to the denial of furlough on the ground that petitioner committed crime while absconding parole is concerned, it is pertinent to mention herein that no rule has been pointed out by the State for such a situation where the furlough has been denied perennially, even with earning of last three annual good conduct report when the accused had jumped parole or furlough or committed a crime.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and the view taken by this Court in Satender alias Gajender (supra) and Rajkumar alias Bhola (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is suitable for granting furlough. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner is granted furlough for a period of 3 weeks on following conditions:

(i) The Petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of

(ii) The petitioner shall provide his mobile phone number to the concerned Jail Superintendent and SHO concerned at the time of release, which shall be kept in working condition at all times;

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without the prior permission of this Court and shall reisde at the address as per prison records;

(iv) The petitioner shall present himself before the S.H.O.,

P.S.: Nand Nagri every third day between 11:00 AM and 11:30 AM to mark his presence. However, he will not be kept waiting longer than an hour for this purpose.