In this writ petition seeking furlough, the Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner was not eligible for release as the minimum six-month gap required under the 2010 Parole/Furlough Guidelines had not elapsed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Prayer for furlough for three weeks rejected; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~60
GUDDU @ PANDU ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Naomi Chandra, Advocate
STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, A.S.C. for the State
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 09.02.2016
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
FEBRUARY 09, 2016/ ‘pg’
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to release on furlough/parole despite the existing six-month gap rule under Parole/Furlough Guidelines-2010.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Guddu @ Pandu
State
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
