In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking furlough for a prisoner involved in FIR No. 407/2016 under Section 302/34 IPC. The court set aside the Competent Authority’s order that had denied the request, citing the petitioner’s alleged involvement in another offense during a prior furlough.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, represented by advocates Siddharth Yadav and Anmol, challenged the rejection of his furlough request dated July 9, 2024. The authorities had denied his release, stating that during an earlier furlough, he was arrested in FIR No. 226/2024 under Section 307/120B/34 IPC and the Arms Act. However, the Sessions Court later granted him bail in this case, noting he was not initially named as an assailant.
Justice Girish Kathpalia examined the bail order and found no justification to uphold the furlough denial. The court highlighted that the petitioner’s nominal roll showed no jail misconduct after April 30, 2018, except for a minor warning on November 18, 2024, which was not considered by the Competent Authority during their decision.
Read also:- J&K High Court Dismisses Plea Against Regularisation of Minor Building Deviation in Srinagar
“The punishment dated 18.11.2024 was only a warning and cannot be a hurdle for furlough now,” the court observed.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner misbehaved with jail staff in November 2024, making him ineligible for furlough until November 2025. However, the court dismissed this claim, stating the warning was not severe enough to override his clean record or the Sessions Court’s bail findings.
The High Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner’s release on a two-week furlough upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety. The Jail Superintendent was instructed to provide a written surrender date.
Read also:- Personal Assistant Interview Schedule 2025 Released - Check Date, Time & Candidate List
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on individual rights and procedural fairness, even in cases involving serious allegations. The decision balances institutional concerns with the petitioner’s demonstrated compliance, setting a precedent for similar furlough disputes.
Case Title: Sartaj v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case no: W.P.(CRL) 3779/2024
