The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside an order rejecting a convict's furlough plea, Observing that the jail authorities had failed to provide complete facts and stressing that parole and furlough are vital tools for reformation rather than mere extensions of prison discipline.
Background
The case concerned Chetan, a prisoner who had applied for furlough but was denied by the prison authorities on 5 August 2025. The rejection cited his earlier delay of three days in returning to custody after a previous furlough. At that time, Chetan was issued a warning, and the authorities insisted that a fresh request could only be made after a year.
Read also:- Bombay HC Quashes Order, Directs Refund of ₹1.17 Crore Stamp Duty to Armstrong Machine Builders
Chetan's lawyer, however, argued before Justice Girish Kathpalia that the delay was not willful. The convict had suffered an eye injury, and even the stitches were removed inside the jail hospital.
"The authorities were fully aware of his condition, yet the punishment was imposed mechanically," counsel submitted.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Trial Court, Upholds Son's Claim in Inheritance Case
During the hearing, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, Yasir Rauf Ansari, candidly admitted that the impugned order lacked essential details. He agreed that the rejection could not stand and suggested the matter be reconsidered by the competent authority.
Justice Kathpalia seized the moment to underline the broader principle:
"The basic purpose of parole and furlough is to prevent prisonization and ensure reformation of the convict. Unless there are aggravating circumstances, a delay of a day or two in surrender must be examined with a tilt in favour of the convict."
Read also:- Rahul Gandhi Challenges Varanasi Court FIR Order in Allahabad High Court
The Judge also took note of a past notification where a mere "warning" was not treated as a bar for furlough, pointing out that its subsequent withdrawal seemed "a regressive step, not consonant with the concept of reformation." While the State argued that strict measures were needed to maintain discipline inside jails, the bench posed the critical question - whether such measures could override the reformative purpose of parole and furlough.
In his oral judgment, Justice Kathpalia set aside the rejection order and directed the competent authority to decide Chetan's furlough application afresh within three weeks, with the final decision to be conveyed to the petitioner within another week. A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for immediate compliance.
Case Title: Chetan vs State GNCT of Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 2799/2025 & CRL.M.A. 26343/2025
