Moti @ Mohit v. State, NCT of Delhi

1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking extension of furlough – which was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Director General (Prisons), Tihar Jail, New Delhi and is to expire on 12.07.2025 – till the next date of hearing in the main petition.

2. The facts, as apparent from the records, are that the applicant herein is presently confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi, in relation to case arising out of FIR No. 428/2004, registered at Police Station Defence Colony for offence punishable under Sections 302/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’], wherein he was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction of the petitioner was also upheld by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. As on date, the petitioner has undergone an actual sentence of about 19 years and 07 months, excluding the remission of about 3 years and 10 months.

4. The above-captioned writ petition was preferred by the petitioner inter alia challenging the rejection order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) whereby the premature release of the petitioner has been denied.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s case has been recommended for premature release by the jail authorities on multiple occasions, including 27.08.2021, 30.06.2023, 23.02.2024, and 10.12.2024. However, despite such recommendations, the SRB has rejected his case on each occasion by citing identical and repetitive grounds, without proper application of mind. It is contended that the SRB has mechanically declined the petitioner’s request by merely relying upon police objections or by referring to the gravity and heinousness of the offence, without engaging with the individual facts and the petitioner’s overall conduct in prison. It is further submitted that vide order dated 24.03.2025, this Court issued notice in the writ petition and called for a status report from the State. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.06.2025, the DG (Prisons), Tihar Jail, granted the petitioner a second spell of furlough for a period of two weeks. The petitioner was accordingly released from custody on 27.06.2025. The learned counsel further submits that on 04.07.2025, the captioned writ petition was listed for arguments before this Court. However, due to the non-availability of the learned counsel for the State, the matter was adjourned to 25.07.2025. Thus, in the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking extension of furlough till the next date of hearing, or for any such further.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for over 23 years, and the rejection of his case for premature release has been based on grounds that are ex facie vague and arbitrary. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has been granted parole on 8 occasions and furlough on 13 occasions and has never misused the liberty granted to him. In view thereof, it is urged that no prejudice would be caused to the State if the present application seeking extension of furlough is allowed for a limited period.

7. The learned ASC appearing for the State, on the other hand, argues that the petitioner cannot seek any extension of furlough merely on the ground that he has filed the captioned writ petition challenging the decision of the SRB refusing his premature release. It is also argued that permitting such a practice would open the floodgates for convicts to bypass the statutory process for premature release by seeking parole or furlough till disposal of their petitions filed before the Courts, which is not contemplated under the law.

8. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties, and has pursued the case file.

9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the question of whether a convict is to be released prematurely falls within the domain of the SRB, which is required to decide such matters in accordance with the policy prevailing at the relevant time, as well as in line with the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. When a convict approaches a constitutional court challenging an order of rejection passed by the SRB, particularly in cases where the convict is otherwise eligible for consideration under the applicable policy, the Court is empowered to examine whether the SRB has adhered to the governing policy and applied its mind to the relevant material before it.

10. However, the pendency of such a writ petition before this Court cannot, in itself, become a ground for seeking an extension of furlough or parole granted to such a period for an indefinite period. Merely because the petitioner has been incarcerated for a substantial period of time, or because he is eligible for consideration by the SRB, or even because he claims that the rejection of his premature release was arbitrary or mechanical – such grounds cannot be sufficient to claim, as a matter of right, extension of furlough or parole until final adjudication of his petition. The grant of parole or furlough is a temporary concession or relief, granted to a convict, governed by the Delhi Prison Rules and the same cannot be treated as a substitute for premature release or bail.

11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that extension of furlough granted to the petitioner by the competent authority, solely on the ground that the main writ petition challenging the SRB’s order is pending adjudication, would not be justified in law.

12. This Court thus finds no merit in this application. The same is accordingly dismissed.

13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J JULY 15, 2025