Imran Alias Murgi Chor v. State NCT of Delhi

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of three weeks.

2. As set out in the petition, and evident from the Nominal Roll on record, the petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 03, Tihar, New Delhi, as he was convicted for commission of offence under Sections 120B/302/392/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] and was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by him against his conviction, i.e. CRL.A. 978/2019, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 19.02.2025.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached the Competent Authority for grant of furlough for a period of three weeks vide application dated 24.03.2025; however, the same was not decided for a considerable period of time, due to which the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.(CRL) 1463/2025 before this Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2025 with a direction that the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner be decided within 10 days. It is stated that the petitioner had again preferred another petition i.e. W.P.(CRL) 1822/2025 before this Court since his application had not been decided, which came up for hearing on 29.05.2025; however, he was informed eventually that his application for furlough had been dismissed on 26.05.2025. Thus, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

4. It is argued that the competent authority has mechanically rejected the furlough application of the petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 14 years, and since 05.07.2022, the petitioner has maintained good conduct in jail and no punishment has been recorded against him. It is also stated that he was granted interim bail by this Court from 29.12.2024 to 07.01.2025, and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. It is contended that the petitioner‟s appeal against his conviction was rejected by this Court in February, 2025, and he wishes to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court against the said decision, for which he needs to arrange a competent lawyer and also arrange some funds for the said purpose. Thus, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted furlough for a period of three weeks.

5. The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, argues that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender. It is also contended that the overall jail conduct of the petitioner is unsatisfactory and he was given about seven punishments in the past. It is therefore submitted that if released on furlough, there is every likelihood that the petitioner may re-engage in criminal activities or abscond and fail to surrender.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for either side, and has perused the material placed on record.

7. The petitioner‟s application seeking furlough was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 26.05.2025, primarily on the ground that his jail conduct was not satisfactory and he has not earned reward in last 03 Annual Good Conduct Remission.

8. It is clear from the Nominal Roll that the overall jail conduct of the petitioner has not been satisfactory due to seven jail punishments awarded to him between the years 2019 and 2022. However, it is also apparent from the records that the last punishment awarded to him in the jail was on 05.07.2022, i.e. more than 3 years ago. Since then, his jail conduct has been satisfactory. Therefore, it is clear that since the year 2022, till date, neither any punishment has been awarded to the petitioner within the jail nor any other criminal case has been registered against him.

9. The petitioner was also granted interim bail (interim suspension of sentence) by the Division Bench from 29.12.2024 to 07.01.2025 on account of the demise of his maternal grandfather, and the petitioner had surrendered on the expiry of the said period.

10. As far as the ground of the petitioner that he wishes to file SLP is concerned, this Court in case of Parsu Ram v. State (GNCTD of Delhi): 2023:DHC:000108 had observed as under:

11. Similar observations were made in Vinod Kumar v. State (GNCT of Delhi): 2023:DHC:9345, which are as under:

12. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration of the petitioner, and his jail conduct of last three years, and the fact that he wishes to engage a lawyer for filing of SLP before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for challenging his conviction, which is his last hope, this Court is inclined to direct the release of petitioner on furlough for a period of three weeks (which shall be counted from the date of his release), on the following conditions:

I. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of