Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the petitioner should be granted furlough for a period of three months. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on appropriate terms and conditions after being produced before the Trial Court within seven days. The Bench noted that the petitioner had completed 20 years of actual imprisonment without remission, and that this warranted temporary release under strict safeguards, particularly concerning the safety and security of other involved parties.
The petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking furlough during the pendency of the related special leave petition. This application was made in I.A. No. 147782/2025 in SLP(Crl) No. 17915/2024. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 1682/2023 before the High Court of Delhi, seeking furlough for a period of three weeks. That petition had been rejected by the High Court through an order dated 25.11.2024.
The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2012 passed a judgment and order dated 06.02.2015 enhancing the sentence. The revised sentence mandated that the petitioner must undergo 20 years of actual imprisonment without remission and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. This sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
In the interlocutory application under consideration, senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had completed 20 years of actual imprisonment without remission as of 09.03.2025. It was further stated that the writ petition seeking furlough was filed prior to this date.
During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that since the matter concerned furlough, the Court could consider passing an appropriate order. However, it was also pointed out that the security of the informant needed to be considered, as she had been provided protection by the State due to the circumstances surrounding the case.
Counsel for respondent No. 2 strongly opposed the petitioner’s plea. She submitted that the conduct of the petitioner was not appropriate and did not entitle him to any discretionary relief. She referred to an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1848/2020, wherein the Judge recused herself from hearing the matter, stating that attempts had been made to influence the Court. However, it was noted that no enquiry had been conducted to determine who was responsible for such conduct.
The Court observed that while such actions were condemnable, the absence of an enquiry meant it would not be just to deny the petitioner relief based solely on that basis.
"We have heard Shri Siddharth Mridul, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, learned A.S.G. for the respondent(s)/State and Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent No.2."
"Be it stated that petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life."
"In Criminal Appeal No.145/2012, the High Court passed judgment and order dated 06.02.2015 enhancing the sentence of the petitioner to life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission and fine of Rs.10,000/-. This order of the High Court has been affirmed by this Court."
"Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had completed 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission on 09.03.2025. However, prior thereto the related Writ Petition, i.e., W.P. (Crl.) No.1682/2023 was filed before the High Court seeking furlough for a period of three weeks."
"In the course of hearing of the main SLP, this Court permitted the petitioner to amend the Special Leave Petition incorporating the ground that petitioner’s sentence would come to an end on undergoing 20 years of actual incarceration without remission."
"In the hearing today, learned A.S.G very fairly submits that since it is a matter of furlough, Court may consider passing appropriate order. But, at the same time, the security of the informant should also be taken into consideration by the Court as she has already been offered security by the State because of the circumstances surrounding the case."
"Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently objects to the prayer of the petitioner. She submits that conduct of the petitioner leaves much to be desired and would not entitle him to any discretionary relief from the Court. In this connection, she has referred to an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No.1848/2020 whereby the learned Judge recused herself from hearing the matter observing that attempts have been made to influence the Court."
"While such conduct is highly deplorable and condemnable, there is nothing on record to show whether any enquiry was conducted to find out who had indulged in such reprehensible activity. In the absence thereof, it would not be just and proper to deny relief to the petitioner on that count."
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking an overall view of the matter, more particularly the factum that petitioner has completed 20 years of uninterrupted incarceration without remission, as ordered by the High Court which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that it is a fit case where petitioner deserves to be released on furlough at least for a limited duration."
"That being the position, we grant furlough to the petitioner for a period of three months from the date of release. Petitioner shall be produced before the learned Trial Court within a maximum period of seven days from today, whereafter the learned Trial Court shall release the petitioner on furlough on appropriate terms and conditions including concerning safety and security of respondent Nos.2 and 3."
"The Interlocutory Application is disposed of."
"List the matters before the Regular Bench on 29.07.2025, as already ordered."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Mridul, Senior Advocate; Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Advocate; Ms. Madhurima Mridul, Advocate; Mr. Minnatullah, Advocate; Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
For the Respondents: Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Advocate; Ms. Harshita Choubey, Advocate; Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Advocate; Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Advocate; Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advocate; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Mr. Shrirang B. Verma, Advocate; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate; Mr. Sourav Singh, Advocate; Mr. Sanchar Anand, Advocate; Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR; Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Advocate; Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR
Case Title: Nikhil Shivaji Golait vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). 4703/2024 with SLP(Crl) No. 17915/2024
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
