Delhi High Court Clarifies Delhi Prison Rules On Simultaneous Release Of Co-Accused; Holds No Absolute Prohibition On Joint Parole

The petitioners, Sandeep alias Sandy and Vijay Dahiya, were among six persons convicted for murder in a 2016 case. Their challenge was triggered by the rejection of Sandeep’s furlough application on March 5, 2024, solely on the ground that a co-convict was already out on furlough. The petitioners contended that NOTE-2 of Rule 1212 and NOTE-1 of Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prisons Rules were being interpreted as a total ban on simultaneous release unless the co-accused were family members, potentially denying them furlough for years due to the number of co-accused in the case.

Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “…we dispose of these petitions by clarifying that there is no prohibition in the Competent Authority granting simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused, however, the same is restricted and the Competent Authority while considering such application would examine the same more strictly in accordance with the Rules and keeping in view the competing objectives…”.

Advocate Ranbir Singh Kundu appeared for the petitioner and Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC appeared for the respondent.

For the background, the petitioners’ conviction and life sentence (with a minimum of 20 years actual imprisonment) were upheld by the High Court in 2023, and their Special Leave Petition was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court. They approached the High Court seeking to "read down" the impugned Rules, arguing that a literal interpretation defeats the reformative purpose of parole and furlough as recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2017) 15 SCC 55, noted that parole and furlough are progressive measures of correctional services intended to maintain social ties.

“The said provisions, therefore, advisedly use the expression ‘ordinarily”, which in itself implies that while there is discretion to grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to a co-accused, “ordinarily” it is not permissible. Therefore, while there is no complete embargo on the Competent Authority to grant simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused persons, however, ordinarily the Competent Authority should ensure that simultaneous parole/furlough is not granted to co-accused persons”, it noted.

“As far as the mention in the Impugned Rules of the grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused who are family members, the same is only to highlight one such condition where simultaneous parole/furlough can be granted to co-accused, that is, where they are family members. Mere mention of this exception, however, cannot curtail the general permissible provisions contained in the Impugned Rules. The Impugned Rules are only to restrict and not prohibit the simultaneous grant of parole/furlough to the co-accused”, it further noted.

Accoridngly, the Court disposed of the petitions by clarifying that there is no absolute bar on simultaneous release. However, it mandated that the Competent Authority must examine such applications "more strictly" to ensure that any threat to law and order is averted, possibly by imposing additional conditions. The Court ultimately found the challenge to the validity of the Rules to be without merit, provided they are interpreted in this flexible, principle-based manner.

Cause Title: Sandeep Alias Sandy v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3601-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Ranbir Singh Kundu, Shubham Mavi, Paras, Faraz Maqbool, Panel Counsel A. Sahitya Veena, Deepshikha, and Ananya Luthra, Advocates.

Respondents: Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC, Rahul Tyagi, ASC, Alok Sharma, Sangeet Sibou, Aniket Kumar Singh, and Priyansh Raj Singh Senger, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment