RAM NATH vs STATE NCT OF DELHI
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 04.01.2024
Pronounced on: 08.01.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 511/2023
RAM NATH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aman Panwar and Mr. Shivam Singh Baghel, Advocates (appeared through VC)
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State with Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Jain, Mr. Aashish Chojar, Advocates and Inspector Ravinder Kumar, P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), the petitioner seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order no. F.10(3618188/CJ/LEGAL/2023/9653 dated 08.02.2023 passed by the respondent, and/or issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on 1st Spell of Furlough for a period of three weeks.
2. In the present case, the petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail No. 02, Tihar, New Delhi. The petitioner was convicted in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 445/2000, registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi, under Sections 302/307/397/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and by virtue of order on sentence dated 27.04.2005, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life along with payment of fine of Rs 2000/-, and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. His appeal against conviction i.e. CRL.A. 576/2005 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.12.2007.
3. The petitioner now seeks 1st spell of furlough for a period of three weeks, for re-establishing social and family ties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had preferred an application on 11.10.2022 before the jail authorities for grant of furlough for a period of three weeks on the ground of maintaining social ties with society and family members, but the same was rejected by the competent authority on 08.02.2023. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was given punishment dated 22.04.2018 since he had jumped parole in April, 2014, however, he has already undergone more than 4 years after re-arrest and his overall and last 3 years conduct inside the jail is satisfactory. It is also stated that he has already spent about 19 years in jail, excluding period of remission, and he seeks furlough for curbing inner stress and re-establishing ties with his family members and society. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on furlough for a period of three weeks.
5. On the other hand, learned ASC for the State submits that though the conduct of the petitioner has been satisfactory during the last one year, but it cannot be denied that the petitioner had been given punishment dated 22.04.2018 since he had jumped parole and could get re-arrested only after a period of about four years, and thus, possibility of absconding again cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is submitted that present petition be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned ASC for the State, and has perused the material placed on record.
7. The order dated 08.02.2023, vide which the furlough application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities, reads as under:
…This is in reference to the application for grant of furlough to convict Ram Nath s/o Kewal Dass.
In this regard, I am directed to inform you that the Competent Authority has considered the application for grant of furlough and same has been declined for the following reason(s):-
1. As this being the category case in view of Rule 1225 Delhi: Prison Rules 2018 and the case needs to be recommended by DIG(P). However, the same was not recommended by DIG(P) on the following observations.
a. Punishment dated 22.04.2018 for parole jump and re-arrested after 04 years.
b. Opposition expressed by police on his release and nature of offence.
The convict may be informed under proper acknowledgement….
8. Thus, the application for grant of furlough filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he had jumped parole and was re-arrested after 04 years and that the offence he committed is serious in nature.
9. This Court has gone through the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Rule 1197 and 1200 provide insight as to what objects are achieved by releasing a convict on parole. The said rules read as under:
1197. Parole and Furlough to inmates are progressive measures of correctional services. The release of prisoner on parole not only saves him from the evils of incarceration but also enables him to maintain social relations with his family and community. It also helps him to maintain and develop a sense of self-confidence. Continued contacts with family and the community sustain in him a hope for life. The release of prisoner on furlough motivates him to maintain good conduct and remain disciplined in the prison.
***
1200. The objectives of releasing a prisoner on parole and furlough are:
i. To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with familial and social matters,
ii. To enable him to maintain and develop his self- confidence,
iii. To enable him to develop constructive hope and active interest in life,
iv. To help him remain in touch with the developments in the outside world,
v. To help him remain physiologically and psychologically healthy, vi. To enable him to overcome/recover from the stress and evil effects of incarceration, and
vii. To motivate him to maintain good conduct and discipline in the prison…
10. Further, Rule 1223 provides criteria on the basis of which a prisoner can be released on furlough. The said rule reads as under:
1223. In order to be eligible to obtain furlough, the prisoner must fulfil the following criteria: –
I. Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report and continues to maintain good conduct.
II. The prisoner should not be a habitual offender.
III. The prisoner should be a citizen of India.
11. While considering the present writ petition for grant of furlough, this Court remains conscious of the fact that the petitioner has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and that as per the Nominal Roll, he has already suffered incarceration for about 19 years, excluding remission of about 04 years 06 months. The jail conduct of the petitioner, of last one year, has been reported as satisfactory. As regards the overall jail conduct of the petitioner, it is reported to be unsatisfactory, only due to punishment awarded to the petitioner in 2018 for jumping parole, which was granted to him in the year 2014. In this regard, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the non-surrender of the parole was due to ill-health of the petitioners father who was living alone in village and there was no one to look after his health. Be that as it may, this Court has also taken note of the fact that since 22.04.2018 i.e. when the petitioner herein was re-arrested in the present case, he has remained in jail for a period of almost five years and no adverse report or misbehaviour on part of petitioner has been reported during this period. As per nominal roll, the petitioner has been working as a Jail factory sahayak.
12. This Court cannot overlook the circumstances and the family exigencies that may have arisen in the family of the petitioner. Needless to say, while dealing with an issue relating to grant of parole or furlough to a convict, the Courts are required to balance the interests of convict as well as of the society. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has continuously remained in jail since 22.04.2018 and has not been released on parole or furlough since then, and thus, it will be essential for him to maintain social ties with society and family members.
13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted furlough for a period of three (03) weeks, on the following terms and conditions:
i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, who shall be a family member of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
ii. The petitioner is stated to be a resident of Bihar, therefore, he will give an undertaking regarding the address where he will be staying during the period of furlough.
iii. The petitioner shall report to the SHO of local police station, once a week on every Sunday between 10:00AM to 11:00 AM.
iv. The petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent on which he can be contacted, if required. After his release, he shall also inform his telephone/mobile number to the SHO of the Police Station concerned. The said telephone number shall be kept active and operational at all the times by the petitioner.
v. Immediately upon the expiry of period of furlough, the petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent.
vi. The period of furlough shall be counted from the day when the petitioner is released from Jail.
14. In the above terms, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
15. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.
16. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 8, 2024/ns
W.P. (CRL) 511/2023 Page 1 of 7