PAWAN SINGH vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15.04.2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 4072/2024
PAWAN SINGH …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …..Respondent
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State with SI Anuradha, PS Harsh Vihar

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 11266/2025 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 11265/2025 (for early hearing)
2. Keeping in mind that for past 2-3 dates the matter could not reach for hearing till end of the day before the predecessor bench, the application is allowed with consent of both sides and hearing dated 22.05.2025 is preponed to this day.
W.P.(CRL) 4072/2024
3. The petitioner has assailed order dated 30.10.2024 of the competent authority, whereby his application for grant of second spell of furlough for two weeks was dismissed. The reason for denial of furlough, as recorded in the impugned order was that the petitioner on the previous occasion overstayed on furlough and surrendered belatedly, for which punishment of warning was recorded against him. According to the impugned order, the petitioner would be now entitled to seek furlough after 11.09.2025.
4. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that in view of order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Additional Inspector General of Prisons, Tihar, the punishment of warning is not a substantive punishment, so cannot be treated as a reason to deny furlough.
5. Apart from the above mentioned order, copy whereof has been placed on record at pdf 21, it also would be significant to note that according to the Nominal Roll, the petitioner was released on furlough on about 15 occasions prior to the last occasion (when he allegedly overstayed on furlough) and he duly surrendered on all those 15 occasions in time and never overstayed.
6. Considering the above circumstances in the backdrop of overall purpose behind this reformatory tool of furlough, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that petitioner be released on second spell of furlough for a period of two weeks in case FIR No. 66/2010 of PS Harsh Vihar for offence under Section 302 IPC, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent and also subject to the condition that he shall not leave the National Capital Region without informing the SHO of the area of his residence. The petitioner shall provide his mobile phone number to the Jail Superintendent and that mobile phone number shall remain constantly switched on. At the time of releasing the petitioner on furlough, the concerned Jail Superintendent shall inform him the specific date of surrender in writing. Upon expiry of the period of furlough, the petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent. Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.
7. At this stage, learned ASC has pointed out that on behalf of same petitioner, another petition was filed, in which he sought quashing of the same order as impugned in the present case. The said other petition is W.P.(CRL) 490/2025, now listed on 03.07.2025. It is explained by learned counsel for petitioner that the other petition was filed from Jail without his knowledge while the present petition has been filed by father of the petitioner as a pairokar.
8. A copy of this order be placed in the file of W.P.(CRL) 490/2025 alongwith a report of registry clarifying as to whether such petitions filed by pairokars can be entertained even beyond the period of Covid pandemic and if so, under what provision.

GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 15, 2025/as

W.P.(CRL) 4072/2024 Page 1 of 3 pages