In a detailed judgment delivered this week, the Delhi High Court stepped in to correct what it called a flawed application of prison rules. The court set aside an order denying furlough to a life convict on the ground that he was a “habitual offender,” holding that the label had been applied without meeting the legal definition.
The ruling came in a petition filed by Vinod, also known as Vinode or Bhole, who has been behind bars for nearly two decades.
Background of the Case
The petitioner is lodged in Central Jail No. 8, Tihar. He was convicted in 2013 for serious offences including kidnapping and criminal conspiracy, and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal against conviction was dismissed in 2016.
Read also:- Divorced Daughter Entitled to Family Pension: Calcutta High Court Backs CAT Order Against Centre
In July 2025, Vinod applied for his first spell of furlough, citing family ties, social reintegration, and the mental strain of long incarceration. The jail authorities sought police verification and a social investigation report, both of which were placed before the competent authority.
However, in September 2025, his application was rejected. The reason: the authorities classified him as a “habitual offender” under Rule 1223(ii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, making him ineligible for furlough.
What the Petitioner Argued
Challenging the rejection, Vinod approached the High Court. His counsel argued that the decision was based on an outdated and incorrect understanding of the term “habitual offender.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears UP Government in Ayurvedic Nurse Appointment Row, Says Training Doesn’t Guarantee Job
The defence pointed out that Vinod has been continuously in custody since October 2007. All his convictions after that date were recorded while he was already in jail. Under a revised and uniform definition issued by the Government of India in December 2024, a prisoner can be called a habitual offender only if he is convicted more than twice within a continuous five-year period, excluding time spent in jail.
“Once the jail period is excluded, there is no five-year window where the petitioner was convicted while at liberty,” the counsel submitted.
The defence also highlighted Vinod’s prison conduct, noting that he had been granted parole and furlough several times earlier and had largely complied with conditions.
State’s Stand
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the focus should be on the dates when offences were committed, not when convictions were recorded. According to the prosecution, Vinod’s criminal history across multiple years showed habitual criminality.
Read also:- Kerala HC nudges State on anti-superstition law, suggests special police cell to tackle black magic cases
The State also relied on one instance where Vinod was re-arrested during emergency parole in 2021 under the Arms Act, saying this misuse of liberty justified denial of furlough.
Court’s Observation
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma undertook a close reading of the amended definition of “habitual offender.”
“The definition places clear emphasis on conviction and sentence, not merely the commission of offences,” the court observed. It added that the law specifically requires exclusion of jail time while calculating the five-year period.
The bench rejected the State’s interpretation, warning that it would lead to illogical outcomes where old offences could permanently bar a prisoner from reform-oriented reliefs like furlough.
“The proviso makes it evident that the definition contemplates convictions occurring while the person is at liberty,” the judgment noted.
Decision
Applying the amended rule to Vinod’s case, the court found that all convictions relied upon by the authorities were recorded during his continuous incarceration. As a result, he did not meet the legal criteria of a habitual offender.
The High Court set aside the September 2025 rejection order and remanded the matter back to the competent authority for fresh consideration. It made it clear that Vinod’s furlough application cannot be rejected on the ground of habitual offending.
The authority has been directed to take a fresh decision within four weeks, strictly in accordance with the Delhi Prison Rules.
Case Title: Vinod @ Vinode @ Bhole vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Case Number: W.P.(CRL.) 3044/2025
