Irshad @ Babloo v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC23 Mar 2026W.P.(CRL)/534/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Furlough; cash surety in lieu of surety; life convict; Article 226 writ petition; W.P.(CRL) 534/2026; Delhi High Court; Prateek Jalan, J; FIR No. 694/2016, Sections 302/147/148/149/34 IPC, PS Bhalaswa Dairy; surety of Rs. 10,000/- with personal bond; jail superintendent status report 20.02.2026; IO status report 23.03.2026; surety Ms. Mehraj (petitioner's aunt) valid and willing; FDR Punjab National Bank; Competent Authority order 13.11.2025 declining cash surety; petition disposed of in terms of status reports with liberty to approach afresh.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the contents of the status reports filed by the jail superintendent and the IO; the petitioner is not precluded from approaching the Court afresh if the need arises. ¶¶24

Irshad @ Babloo Vs State (Nct of Delhi) — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in terms of the contents of the status reports filed by the jail superintendent and the IO; the petitioner is not precluded from approaching the Court afresh if the need arises.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose furlough was allowed subject to furnishing a surety of Rs. 10,000/- with a personal bond in the like amount, may be released on the first spell of furlough upon furnishing a cash surety instead of a surety.

¶¶13

Court's answer

On the contents of the status reports, it prima facie appears that the petitioner has already furnished a surety of his aunt, which is acceptable for the purposes of the present spell of furlough also; no further orders are required in the writ petition.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petition stands disposed of in terms of the contents of the status reports filed by the jail superintendent and the IO, without precluding the petitioner from approaching the Court afresh if the need arises.

¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by a convict serving a life sentence (FIR No. 694/2016, Sections 302/147/148/149/34 IPC, PS Bhalaswa Dairy) who sought release on the first spell of furlough upon furnishing a cash surety in place of the imposed surety of Rs. 10,000/- with a personal bond in the like amount. The status report of the jail superintendent (20.02.2026) showed that the surety furnished for the earlier spell of furlough — Ms. Mehraj, the petitioner's aunt, backed by a bank-verified FDR of Rs. 10,000/- — remained valid and deposited with the jail authorities, and the IO's status report (23.03.2026) recorded her willingness to furnish surety again. Holding that it prima facie appeared the petitioner had already furnished an acceptable surety for the present spell of furlough, the Court found no further orders necessary, disposed of the petition in terms of the status reports, and left the petitioner free to approach the Court afresh if the need arises.

¶1

$~25

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 534/2026, CRL.M.A. 4950/2026, IRSHAD @ BABLOO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Ms. Ishita Sehrawat & Mr. Durgesh, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr. Arjit Sharma & Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates. SI Mahender Kali, PS Bhalaswa Dairy.

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R

¶5

% 23.03.2026

¶6

The petitioner is serving a life sentence, having been convicted in proceedings arising out FIR No. 694/2016 under Sections 302/147/148/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Bhalaswa Dairy, District North, Delhi.

¶7

The petitioner’s application for furlough was allowed by the competent authority vide order dated 30.08.2025, subject to furnishing of surety of Rs. 10,000/-, alongwith a personal bond in the like amount. The difficulty with which he has approached this Court is that he is unable to arrange a surety, and wishes to furnish cash surety instead.

¶8

His request to this effect has been declined by the Competent Authority vide order dated 13.11.2025.

¶9

W.P.(CRL) 534/2026

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 27/03/2026 at 13:29:37

¶13

By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner now seeks release on the first spell of furlough upon furnishing a cash surety instead of furnishing a surety.

¶14

In the status report filed by the jail superintendent dated 20.02.2026, it is stated as follows:

¶15

“ 8. Further, in view of the submission given by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner it is submitted that, earlier also the said convict approached for the same before this Hon’ble Court vide W.P.Crl No. 4224/2024 whenever he was granted first spell of furlough granted by the DG(P) vide order no 2746 dated 01.10.2024 but the said convict didn't wait for the disposal of the said petition and meanwhile he was released from this jail on 24.06.2025 to avail furlough after furnishing the condition of one surety of Rs. 10,000/alognwith personal bond of like amount and at that time Ms. Mehraj W/o Israr R/o KH No. 51, Gali No. 10, Mukund Vihar, Part - Mukundpur, Delhi - 110047 fulfill the condition of surety to release the convict and submitted a copy of AADHAR Card vide no. 9646-3604-5396 and a bank FDR A/c 481000PU00034294 dated 23.01.2024 of Rs. 10,000/- issued by Punjab National Bank, Branch - Mukundpur, Delhi which was duly verified from Bank Manager and directed to marked as HOLD the same FDR by this office and the verification of above said surety was also sought from concerned DCP which was received in this office from DCP, Outer North District Vide no. 4100 dated 02.06.2025.

¶16

9. In view of the above, it is also submitted that the surety Ms. Mehraj W/o Israr is still valid for the release of said convict on furlough as the surety verification and the FD submitted by the surety at that time are still deposited in this office and the petitioner shall be released as and when Ms. Mehraj S/o Israr presenting herself before the undersigned for furnishing the condition of surety. ”

¶17

The Investigating Officer [“IO”] has also filed a status report dated 23.03.2026, which includes statement of Ms. Mehraj, w/o Israr, the aunt of the petitioner, who has furnished surety for the earlier spell of furlough, She stated that she is willing to furnish surety on this occasion as well.

¶18

W.P.(CRL) 534/2026

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 27/03/2026 at 13:29:37

¶22

By order dated 16.03.2026, Mr. Anindya Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, was given an opportunity to seek instructions. He states that he has been unable to get any instructions.

¶23

Having regard to the contents of the status reports, from which it prima facie appears that the petitioner has already furnished a surety of his aunt, which is acceptable for the purposes of the present spell of furlough also, no further orders are required in this writ petition.

¶24

The petition stands disposed of in terms of the contents of the status reports filed by the jail superintendent and the IO. This will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Court afresh, if the need arises.

¶25

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶26

MARCH 23, 2026 ‘pv’/AD/

¶27

W.P.(CRL) 534/2026

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 27/03/2026 at 13:29:37

Irshad @ Babloo v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad @ Babloo 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

Suresh @ Hanumant Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Balmiki & Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Nasrin Fatma Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sumit Kumar & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ajay Kuamr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr. & Anr.

Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ms. R Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mr. Vivek Kumar Ash Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Amit Kumar@Badal Vs State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)

Ms N Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rupesh Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Amir Khan @ Bhuri Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Tushar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Nar.