Delhi HC grants 3-week furlough to convict sentenced to life for raping minor residing in Delhi after he undertakes to stay at his relative’s home in Bihar
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [25-04-2024]

Read Order: DEEPAK v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [DEL HC- W.P.(CRL.) 3253/2023]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, April 30, 2024: The Delhi High Court has granted furlough to the petitioner convicted for raping a minor victim after he undertook to stay at his maternal uncle’s home in Bihar, as the victim lives in Delhi. The High Court also noted that he has been in judicial custody for more than seven years and has also earned three annual good conduct reports.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was considering a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of rejection order passed by the respondent, and for issuance of wit in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks.

In this case, the petitioner was convicted in a case registered under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. After completion of trial, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and accordingly convicted and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000 and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 60 days. The appeal against his conviction filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

It was the petitioner’s case that he had applied to Director General, Prisons, for grant of first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks, however the same was rejected. 

It was contended from the petitioner’s side that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for about seven years and eight months, and has unblemished jail record. It was further stated that the petitioner has earned three annual good conduct reports and as per Rule 1223 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, he is entitled to 1st spell of furlough. It was also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to not reside at the address which is in the vicinity of the house of victim, and he shall rather reside at the address of his maternal uncle, who lives in Bihar. 

The Bench opined that the rejection of petitioner’s furlough was based on two grounds i.e. he is guilty of a heinous offence, and that if he will stay in the house next to the house of the victim, there can be a threat to both the victim and the petitioner. 

However, after going through the status report filed on record, the Bench noted that the petitioner had furnished the address of his maternal uncle at Bihar and stated that he would be staying at the said address during the period of furlough. This address was also verified by the State.

The High Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than seven years and eight months, and has never been released either on parole, bail or furlough. His consistent conduct in the jail had been satisfactory. He has been working as ward sahayak and in the last more than seven years, he has never been awarded any punishment inside the jail. It was also noticed that he is not a habitual offender, and has earned three annual good conduct reports, which also entitle him to furlough under Rule 1223 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

“Considering the fact that he undertakes to stay at his maternal uncle’s home at Bihar whereas the victim stays in Delhi, and since the address of his maternal uncle at Bihar has been verified by the State, this Court directs that the petitioner be released on first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks”, the Bench ordered while also enumeration certain conditions.