Courts & Prison Authorities Must Remain Mindful Of Unprecedented Circumstances During Pandemic: Delhi High Court Grants Furlough To Life Convict

The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by a life convict (Petitioner), directing his release on furlough for a period of two weeks. The Court also quashed the Order by the concerned authorities, which had earlier rejected his furlough applications.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted, “The nominal roll of the petitioner has been received. Upon perusal of the same, it is noted that the petitioner was first granted parole in 2019 by this Court and he had surrendered on time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he was released on emergency parole twice – first from May 2020 to February 2021, and then again in May 2021. On the first occasion, he had surrendered late by seven days, and on the second, by twenty-six days, returning to prison on 03.05.2023 against the surrender date of 07.04.2023 as fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.”

Advocate Khushboo Gupta appeared for the Petitioner, while ASC Sanjeev Bhandari represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was serving a life sentence for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was convicted in 2018, and his Appeal and subsequent SLP before the Supreme Court were dismissed.

He submitted that he had been in judicial custody for approximately nine years and five months. The Petitioner contended that while there were delays in surrendering during two emergency paroles in 2020 and 2021 (seven days and 26 days late, respectively), these delays were unintentional due to the pandemic.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court held, “Undeniably, there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in surrendering on both the occasions. However, 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 entire nation was grappling with crisis, uncertainty, and widespread distress. Amid such hardships, a delay in surrender, particularly by an underprivileged convict from a remote village, ought to be dealt with compassion and sympathy. 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 Bench noted, “It is also relevant to note that after the said incidents, the petitioner was granted furlough by this Court on two subsequent occasions, i.e., first in May 2024 for a period of three weeks, and again on 10.01.2025 for a period of two weeks. On both occasions, the petitioner had surrendered on time and adhered to the conditions imposed by this Court. 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.”

“As per the nominal roll, the petitioner has now completed about 9 years and 5 months in judicial custody, excluding the period of remission. His overall conduct inside the jail has been satisfactory, and he is engaged in prison work as a langar sahayak,” the Court further noted.

The Bench remarked, “It is also brought to the attention of this Court that the petitioner belongs to an economically and socially underprivileged background.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Thus, 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.”

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition.

Cause Title: Vinod v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5111)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Khushboo Gupta and Biswajit Kumar Patra

Respondent: ASC Sanjeev Bhandari

Click here to read/download the Judgment