On 25 July 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling in W.P.(CRL) 3499/2024, granting a furlough to petitioner Mohd. Alam, whose earlier request had been denied due to a delayed surrender from parole. The judgment was passed by Justice Girish Kathpalia.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mohd. Alam, approached the court to challenge an order dated 01 October 2024, in which the Competent Authority rejected his application for furlough—a temporary release from prison. He also requested the court to order his release for a three-week furlough period.
The rejection was based on his failure to surrender after being granted parole during the COVID period. According to records, Alam was supposed to surrender on 07 April 2023 but did not. He was later arrested on 25 April 2024, and a warning was issued as punishment on 26 April 2024, which was valid for one year and affected his furlough eligibility.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Retrospective Enhanced Punishment Under POCSO Violates Article 20(1)
The State, represented by its counsel, did not oppose the petition during the hearing.
The court noted that while the status report dated 04 March 2025 mentioned that Alam was informed about his surrender date via mobile phone, there was no proof or material presented to back this claim. The judgment highlighted the lack of written documentation regarding surrender dates at the time of release, especially for convicts with limited literacy.
“There is nothing on record to show that at the time of being released, the petitioner was informed a specific date on which he had to surrender,” the court remarked.
The petitioner’s legal counsel explained that confusion about surrender dates was common among convicts released during COVID-era emergency paroles, which were extended multiple times under Supreme Court orders.
Read also:- Court Approval Must for Changing Father's Name in Birth Certificate: Kerala HC
Court Criticizes Existing Jail Procedures
The Court referred to previous similar cases, where convicts failed to return on time due to illiteracy or lack of clear communication. The judgment emphasized the importance of a written surrender notice being handed to the convict at the time of release to avoid miscommunication.
“Instead of a bald statement on behalf of the Jail Authorities... it would be appropriate that a written note of date of surrender is handed over to the convict... after taking his acknowledgement,” the judge stated.
Furlough Granted with Conditions
Since the effect of the punishment had expired and the State had no objections, the High Court allowed the petition. It quashed the earlier denial and directed Alam’s immediate release on furlough for three weeks in connection with FIR No. 105/2010 registered at PS Shalimar Bagh under Sections 302/392/34 IPC.
Read also:- BNSS Mandates Prior Notice to Accused Before Cognizance: Delhi High Court Reinforces New Safeguard
The furlough is granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 along with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
Court Issues Further Directions
To prevent future lapses, the High Court issued directions:
“A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent with directions to give a specific date to the petitioner in writing by which he has to surrender at the time of his release on furlough.”
Additionally, the order must be sent to the Director General (Prisons) for implementation of these written communication measures across cases, as outlined in paragraph 5 of the judgment.
Case Title: Mohd. Alam vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 3499/2024