Allowed

Surender Prashad Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC13 May 2025W.P.(CRL)/1493/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a life convict's furlough request due to an 8-day delay in surrender. Noting the delay was inadvertent and based on legal representation lapse, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed release on a 3-week contingency furlough scheme.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.12.2024 quashed; Respondent directed to release Petitioner on first spell of furlough for 3 weeks subject to personal bond and specified conditions.

Surender Prashad Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1493/2025, CRL.M.A. 13816/2025

¶4

SURENDER PRASHAD SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Ravinder Gaur and Mr. Manish Inkania, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State with Mr. Sandeep, Insp., PS-Delhi Cannt.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 13.05.2025

¶11

The Petitioner, through the instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeks quashing of order dated 24^th December, 2024, passed by the Director General of Prisons, Tihar, New Delhi, whereby the Petitioner’s request for release on 1^st spell of furlough has been rejected. Additionally, a direction has also been sought for release of the Petitioner on furlough for a period of 3 weeks.

¶12

The Petitioner is a convict in proceedings emanating from FIR No. 421/1984, PS, Delhi Cantt., under Sections 302/396/147/148/149/395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ . The Petitioner is presently serving life sentence, and has already undergone more than 15 years of incarceration.

¶13

By way of the Impugned order dated 24^th December, 2024 the

¶14

1 “IPC”

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 1493/2025

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:39:31

¶19

Petitioner’s request for furlough has been rejected for the following reasons:

¶20

“i) That he was released on furlough for 02 weeks we.f. 03.04.2024 to 18.04.2024 but he was granted stay from surrendering by the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 6839/2024. Further, the Hon'ble Apex court has dismissed the petition of the convict on 01.10.2024 and directed to surrender but he surrendered late by 08 days on 09.10.2024. A punishment/warning was recorded against him for late surrender.

¶21

ii) As per Standing Order 01/2019, if the convict happens to commit jall offence (jumped Parole/Furlough) and a punishment of Warning has been recorded against him, he shall be eligible for furlough after a gap of one year from the date of punishment.

¶22

iii) As his overall conduct found to be unsatisfactory and furlough is purely an incentive for maintaining good conduct, therefore, his request for furlough cannot be acceded to.”

¶23

As evident from the above, the Petitioner had been granted furlough on previous occasion which had been extended from time to time by the Supreme Court in in SLP (Crl.) No. 6839/2024. Subsequently the writ petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the Petitioner was directed to surrender. However, due to the delay of 8 days in surrendering, a punishment ticket was issued to the Petitioner, which resulted in denial of request for furlough in the Impugned order.

¶24

Counsel for Petitioner explains that due to a lapse on the part of the Petitioner’s Advocate, the Petitioner was unaware of the order dated 01^st October, 2024, passed by the Supreme Court, whereby his petition was dismissed, the interim stay on his surrender was vacated, and he was required to surrender immediately. Moreover, the moment the Petitioner came to know about the vacation of the stay order, he immediately surrendered. He thus asserts that the delay of 8 days was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to non-communication on the part of the counsel for the Petitioner.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

W.P.(CRL) 1493/2025

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:39:31

¶28

The Court has heard the counsel for the parties. The impugned rejection is premised on the punishment ticket issued for delay in surrendering when the Petitioner was earlier released on furlough.

¶29

The justification offered by counsel for Petitioner is plausible. Moreover, the Appellant surrendered immediately on being aware of the order of the Supreme Court. It must be noted that the provision of furlough is a benevolent one and is designed for the welfare of prisoners. The provision has the intent of rewarding prisoners for their good behaviour, when traces of reformation can be seen in them. Thus, although, there is a delay of 08 days on the part of the Petitioner in surrendering before the Jail Authorities, the Court takes note of the peculiar circumstances of the present case as explained by counsel for the Petitioner.

¶30

The Petitioner is serving the sentence for rigorous imprisonment for life and as per nominal roll, as on 31^st March, 2025, the Petitioner has been in custody for 15 years, 10 months and 18 days and earned remission of 4 years, 2 months and 21 days. Furthermore, the Petitioner has been granted furlough on numerous occasions, during which he has not misused the liberty extended to him and has consistently surrendered to the jail authorities in a timely manner on each prior instance. Therefore, considering that the Petitioner had surrendered late on account of an inadvertent mistake, his request for grant of furlough is allowed.

¶31

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the Impugned order dated 24^th December, 2024 is quashed. Consequently, the Respondent is directed to release the Petitioner on first spell of furlough for a period of 3 weeks, to re-establish the social-ties with family members, on furnishing of a personal bond in the

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

W.P.(CRL) 1493/2025

¶34

¶35

sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/Trial Court/Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, and further subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The Petitioner shall not leave the NCT of Delhi during the period of furlough, without the prior permission of this Court. (ii) The Petitioner shall provide the mobile number(s) to the concerned Jail Superintendent and SHO - Delhi Cantt., at the time of his release, which mobile number shall be kept in a working condition at all times.

¶37

(iii) The Petitioner shall appear before the SHO - P.S. Delhi Cantt., Delhi, on every Monday between 11:00 AM and 11:30 AM to mark his presence. However, he shall not be kept waiting for longer than one hour for this purpose.

¶38

(iv) The Petitioner shall positively surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent on the expiry of the period of furlough.

¶39

With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶40

Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.

¶41

In case an inmate who is implicated in the FIR in question, is already on furlough, the Petitioner’s 1^st spell of furlough shall commence once the co-convict has surrendered in terms of Rule 1224 (v) Note 1 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

¶42

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶43

MAY 13, 2025 nk

¶44

Page 4 of 4

¶45

W.P.(CRL) 1493/2025

¶46

Surender Prashad Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Prashad Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Bhargava Vs Ncb

Rajender @ Kallu Vs State Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Narinder Singh Bogarh @ Narinder Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sh Intzar & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shailendra Sharma and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Mohd Aftab Alam Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Gumber Vs Additional Director General

Sharad Bhargava Vs Ncb

Sh Intzar & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Taslima@Putti Vs the State(Nct of Delhi)

Chaman Lata Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashish Jain Vs Ashish Gupta

Vicky Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi