Delay During Covid Not Bar To Furlough | Delhi High Court Grants Two-Week Relief Despite Late Surrender | Rehabilitation Over Punitive Denial
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has allowed a writ petition filed by a life convict, directing the prison authorities to grant furlough for a period of two weeks. The Court quashed the rejection order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the competent authority and held that despite earlier delays in surrender during emergency parole amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the convict had subsequently adhered to conditions during furloughs granted in 2024 and 2025.
Observing the evolving record of compliance and good conduct, the Court stated that rejecting furlough solely based on conduct during the pandemic would be "unduly harsh." The decision was issued considering the overall conduct, long incarceration, and the rehabilitative purpose underlying furlough provisions. The Court issued specific directions regarding bond, weekly reporting to local police, communication obligations, and surrender protocol. The furlough was to commence from the date of actual release.
The petitioner, currently confined in Central Jail No. 3, Tihar, New Delhi, is serving a life sentence imposed upon conviction in FIR No. 168/2011 registered at Police Station Dwarka, Sector-23, Delhi, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The conviction was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in CRL.A. 697/2018 and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on 29.10.2021.
The present writ petition challenged the rejection order issued by the competent authority on 27.03.2025. The petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing his release on furlough for two weeks and a writ of certiorari for quashing the said rejection order.
The petitioner contended that he had been in judicial custody for over 9 years and 5 months. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he was granted emergency parole twice—from 18.05.2020 to 09.02.2021, and again from 15.05.2021 to 07.04.2023. However, he surrendered late by 7 days on the first occasion and by 26 days on the second, which led to a punishment ticket being issued.
Despite these delays, it was submitted that the delay was unintentional and occurred under extraordinary circumstances. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was granted furlough twice subsequently—first in May 2024 for three weeks, and then again in January 2025 for two weeks—on both of which he surrendered on time.
The rejection order stated that the petitioner's conduct during the emergency parole did not meet the criteria laid down under Rule 1223(1) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which requires "good conduct in prison and rewards in last three Annual Good Conduct Reports.” As per the order, his request was rejected due to the violation of emergency parole terms.
The petitioner’s nominal roll indicated a prior parole granted in 2019, during which he surrendered on time. It further indicated engagement in prison duties as a langar sahayak and satisfactory overall conduct.
The respondent, representing the State, acknowledged the past delays and the issuance of a punishment ticket, but also confirmed that the petitioner had surrendered on time during furloughs granted in 2024 and 2025.
The Court observed that the rejection was "primarily on the ground that he had failed to surrender on time after being released on emergency parole, thereby violating its conditions and earning a punishment ticket in the year 2023.” It noted that Rule 1223(1) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, was cited as the basis for declaring the conduct not "good."
Referring to the prevailing conditions during the pandemic, the Court stated: "Courts and prison authorities must also remain mindful of the exceptional and unprecedented circumstances that prevailed during the pandemic. Those were not ordinary times."
The Bench recorded that "amid such hardships, a delay in surrender, particularly by an underprivileged convict from a remote village, ought to be dealt with compassion and sympathy.”
It was further observed: "To repeatedly reject applications for furlough solely on the ground of a delay in surrendering by a few days during an extraordinary public health emergency, would be unduly harsh.”
The Court took note of subsequent furloughs granted to the petitioner in May 2024 and January 2025, during which he complied with all conditions. It recorded: "Notably, his furlough applications were rejected by the concerned authorities even on those occasions for the same reason as in the present case, yet this Court had found it fit to grant him relief.”
With regard to the petitioner’s conduct, the Court noted: "His overall conduct inside the jail has been satisfactory, and he is engaged in prison work as a langar sahayak.”
Acknowledging the petitioner’s socio-economic background, the judgment stated: "The petitioner belongs to an economically and socially underprivileged background. His family consists of his wife and three minor children, all residing in their native village.”
In relation to the broader principle underlying furlough, the Court referred to Rule 1197 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and recorded: "Parole and furlough are progressive steps in the process of reformation and rehabilitation. They serve not only to ease the rigours of long incarceration but also to help prisoners preserve vital social and familial ties.”
The Court allowed the petition and issued the following directions:
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant furlough to the present petitioner for a period of two (02) weeks.”
It directed that: "The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with cash surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent (as also allowed earlier by this Court in the case of present petitioner).”
Further, the Court directed: "The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area i.e. P.S. Jamui, Bihar once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM during the period of furlough.”
The petitioner was required to provide a mobile number and: "The said telephone/mobile number shall be kept active and operational at all the times by the petitioner.”
Finally, the Court ordered: "Immediately upon the expiry of period of furlough, the petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent,” and "The period of furlough shall be counted from the day when the petitioner is released from jail.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Khushboo Gupta and Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel for the State
Case Title: Vinod v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5111
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 1481/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
