Disposed¶28

Dharmender Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC1 Sept 2025W.P.(CRL)/2295/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order dated 27.05.2025 set aside; Petitioner directed to be released on furlough for three weeks after verifying his address, on the stated terms and conditions including a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount. ¶28

Dharmender Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the warning imposed on the Petitioner for belated surrender constitutes punishment under the Explanation to Rule 1178 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, so as to render him ineligible for furlough. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The Explanation to Rule 1178 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 expressly provides that, for the purpose of the Rule, prison offences punished only with a warning shall not be taken into account; consequently a mere warning cannot operate as a punishment barring the Petitioner's furlough entitlement.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The impugned Order dated 27.05.2025 rejecting furlough runs contrary to the express provisions of the Delhi Prison Rules ('in the teeth' thereof) and is therefore set aside.

¶19

Key takeaways

The Petitioner is to be released on furlough for a period of three weeks after verifying his address, subject to prescribed terms and conditions: personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent; weekly reporting to the SHO of the local area on Sundays between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM; furnishing an active telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent and SHO; ordinarily residing at the address mentioned in the Petition; surrendering immediately upon expiry of furlough; the furlough period counted from the day of release from jail.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A convict (Sections 302/392/397 IPC; Section 27 of Arms Act; FIR No.0224/2007, PS DBG Road, Delhi) whose appeal was dismissed by this Court on 07.03.2013 and SLP(CRL)No.27026/2021 on 12.02.2021, with a record of 22 furloughs and two paroles and timely surrenders 2013-2024, surrendered 89 days late on 10.10.2024 after a furlough due to expire on 12.07.2024. His March 2025 furlough application was refused vide Order dated 27.05.2025 citing the absence of three good Annual Conduct Reports and the belated surrender, the State contending that the warning thereby awarded barred furlough until October 2025. Finding that the Explanation to Rule 1178 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 expressly provides that prison offences punished only with a warning shall not be taken into account, the High Court held the impugned Order to be 'in the teeth' of the express provisions of the Rules, set it aside, and ordered the Petitioner's release on furlough for three weeks after address verification, subject to conditions (personal bond Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount; weekly Sunday reporting to the local SHO between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM; active telephone/mobile number furnished to the Jail Superintendent and SHO; ordinary residence at the petition address; immediate surrender on expiry; furlough counted from the day of release). Writ Petition along with pending Application disposed of. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., 01.09.2025.

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 2295/2025

¶4

DHARMENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amitej Kumar Nagar, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R

¶9

% 01.09.2025

¶10

1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing of Order dated 27.05.2025, whereby the Application for Furlough has been rejected.

¶11

2. It is submitted that the Petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 302/392/397 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act in case arising out of FIR No.0224/2007 registered at PS: DBG Road, Delhi.

¶12

3. It is further submitted that his Appeal against the conviction was dismissed by this Court on 07.03.2013. SLP(CRL)No.27026/2021 was also dismissed on 12.02.2021. Petitioner has been released 22 times on furlough and two time parole and has always surrendered timely between 2013-2024. But, when he was released on 21.06.2024 on furlough for a period of three weeks, he had to surrender on 12.07.2024. However, he surrendered on 10.10.2024 i.e. after 89 days.

¶13

4. He moved an Application in March, 2025, but the same was denied

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 02/09/2025 at 12:44:45

¶16

vide Order dated 27.05.2025 by observing the absence of three good Annual Conduct Reports and belated surrender. The same has been challenged in the present Writ Petition on the ground that a warning does not amount to punishment in terms of Explanation of Rule 1178 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

¶17

5. This aspect has not been covered and he has not been released on furlough/parole since October, 2024. Therefore, prayer is made to grant furlough for three weeks.

¶18

6. Learned ASC for the State submits that warning is also a punishment and since that was awarded in October, 2024, he is not entitled to furlough till October, 2025. Moreover, the Order does not suffer from any infirmity. Submissions heard and record perused.

¶19

7. As per the Nominal Roll and the warning issued to the Petitioner for belated surrender after 89 days, Explanation of Rule 1178 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, clearly provides that “for the purpose of this Rule, prison offences punished only with a warning, shall not be taken into account.” It is clearly evident that the impugned Order is in the teeth of express provisions of Delhi Prison Rules. Therefore, the impugned Order is hereby, set aside and the Petitioner be released on furlough for a period of three weeks , after verifying his address and on the following terms and conditions:

¶20

i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.

¶21

ii. The petitioner shall report to the SHO of the local area once a week on every Sunday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM during the period of furlough.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 02/09/2025 at 12:44:45

¶24

iii. The petitioner shall furnish a telephone/mobile number to the Jail Superintendent as well as SHO of local police station, on which he can he contacted, if required. The said telephone number shall be kept active and operational at all the times by the petitioner.

¶25

iv. The petitioner shall ordinarily reside at the address mentioned in the Petition.

¶26

v. Immediately upon the expiry of period of furlough, the Petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent.

¶27

vi. The period of furlough shall be counted from the day when the Petitioner is released from jail.

¶28

8. Writ Petition along with pending Application is disposed of.

¶29

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

¶30

SEPTEMBER 01, 2025/ R

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 02/09/2025 at 12:44:45

Dharmender Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmender Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritik Kapoor & Anr. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Verma Vs State through NCT of Delhi

Manshi Gupta Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Gupta & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kamar Alam & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sh. Mohit Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Prabhat Yadav & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Himanshu Bisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Aasif Mohd. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

M/S Swagath and Anr. Vs Food Safety Officer

Sunny Bhiwal & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rahisuddin Ali Vs State NCT of Delhi

Ajay Sharma Vs Chhaya Bhati