Raj Kishore vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 03.11.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010531072026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3446/2026
RAJ KISHORE .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr.
Siddharth Satija, Ms. Ragini Nagpal,
Ms. Charu Sinha, Mr. Akash Sachan,
Mr. Shriharsh Raj, Mr. Shashank
Tewari, Ms. Akansha Bisht, Mr.
Raghav Gupta, Mr. Arjun Chopra, Mr.
Rahul E, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha (ASC-Crl) along with
Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar,
Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Mr. Gourav
Singh, Advs.
SI Sunil (P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( Oral .)

CRL.M.A. 34604/2026 (Exemption from filing certified copies of annx.)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 3446/2026
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner, who is serving life
imprisonment in FIR No. 179/2011, under Sections 363/364A/120B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and lodged in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42

assails the order No. F.10(3554984)/CJ/Legal/PHQ/2026/71, dated
22.09.2026 (“impugned order”), passed by DS-Legal, Prisons Headquarters,
Tihar, wherein the petitioner’s release on furlough (request approved on
13.08.2026) simultaneously with co-convict Dal Chand (petitioner’s nephew)
was declined. The impugned order reads as follows:

st
4. Prior thereto, the petitioner was sanctioned to be released on first (1
)
spell of furlough by DS-Legal, Prisons Headquarters, Tihar, vide order No.
F.10(3554984)/CJ/Legal/PHQ/2026/6230, dated 13.08.2026, on several
conditions. The petitioner seeks release on furlough on the basis of this order
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42

(13.08.2026). The same reads as follows:


5. It is pertinent to note that the impugned order relies on Note (1) of Rule
1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The said Note (1) reads as follows:
“ Simultaneous furlough to co-accused convicts are ordinarily
not
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42

permissible. However, when co-accused convicts are family
members, simultaneous release may be considered in exceptional
circumstances only
. ”
6. The aforesaid rule, especially the note, came to be considered by the
Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2026 SCC
OnLine Del 2050 , wherein it was observed as under:
“ 31. Applying the above principles, in case NOTE:-(2) of Rule
1212 and NOTE:-(1) of the Rule 1224 are to be read as completely
prohibiting simultaneous parole/furlough being granted to
co-accused persons, it may defeat the very object for which the
provisions of parole and furlough have been introduced
. As
explained by the learned counsels for the petitioners, and not
seriously disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents, in the
present petitions itself, there can be a grave possibility that the
petitioners would not get an opportunity to be released on furlough
for years together as one or the other co-accused may have been
released on parole or furlough at the same time.
The said provisions, therefore, advisedly use the expression
“ordinarily”, which in itself implies that while there is discretion to
grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to a co-accused,
“ordinarily” it is not permissible. Therefore, while there is no
complete embargo on the competent authority to grant
simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused persons, however,
ordinarily the competent authority should ensure that
simultaneous parole/furlough is not granted to co-accused
persons
33.
32.
.
Grant of parole being for specific reasons, in case such reasons
are being made out by the co-accused, parole can be granted
simultaneously to the co-accused
. Similarly, in case there are large
number of co-accused and it is otherwise not possible to grant
furlough to such co-accused at different times, the furlough can be
granted to co-accused simultaneously.
*
36. In view of the above, we dispose of these petitions by clarifying
that there is no prohibition in the competent authority granting
simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused, however, the same is
restricted and the competent authority while considering such
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42

application would examine the same more strictly in accordance
with the Rules and keeping in view the competing objectives as
have been explained by us hereinabove.
The challenge laid by the
petitioners to the above Rules, therefore, has no merit. ”
(emphasis supplied)
7. The Division Bench in Sandeep (supra) also noted the following,
while laying down the test that needs to be followed by the prison authorities
while applying the rule in question:
“ 34. In considering the application for parole/furlough, the
competent authority would keep in view, apart from other relevant
circumstances, whether grant of simultaneous parole/furlough to
co-accused is a threat of them combining together to commit fresh
crime or threaten witnesses or victims or such other like relevant
circumstances. The competent authority may also examine
whether any such threat can be averted by imposing conditions on
such co-accused.
”
8. Thus, the Division Bench, while upholding the validity of the rule in
question, held that the word “ ordinarily ” implies discretion and imposes no
complete embargo. It is further held that in considering the simultaneous
release, the competent prisons authority has to examine whether such release
poses the threat of co-accused combining together to commit a fresh crime, or
threaten witnesses or victims, and whether any such threat can be averted by
imposing conditions on such co-accused.
9. It is further made clear by the Division Bench that the reference to

“ family members ” highlights only one situation in which simultaneous release
may be granted. The purport of the rule is only to restrict and not prohibit the
simultaneous grant of parole/ furlough to the co-accused. The observations
with effect to this in Sandeep (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42

“ 35. As far as the mention in the Impugned Rules of the grant of
simultaneous parole/furlough to co-accused who are family
members, the same is only to highlight one such condition where
simultaneous parole/furlough can be granted to co-accused, that is,
where they are family members. Mere mention of this exception,
however, cannot curtail the general permissible provisions
contained in the Impugned Rules. The Impugned Rules are only to
restrict and not prohibit the simultaneous grant of parole/furlough to
the co-accused. ”
10. It is noticed that the impugned order contains only a single reason, after
paraphrasing Note (1) of Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The
reason provided thereunder is: “ But, the co-convicts of the above said
prisoners do not cover blood relation ”. It records no finding as to whether the
petitioner and Dal Chand are family members within the meaning of the rule
in question, as the rule does not prescribe ‘blood relation’ as the test for
qualifying as “ family members ”. The only reference to the relationship
between the petitioner and Dal Chand is in the subject line of the impugned
order, wherein Dal Chand is mentioned as the nephew of the petitioner.
However, the order, nonetheless, does not provide any reason as to whether
the nephew can be considered a family member.
11. Further, the impugned order considers the absence of blood relation as
conclusive, and does not exercise the discretion that the word “ordinarily”
vests. To elucidate, it does not consider whether the simultaneous release of
two co-convicts (here, the petitioner and Dal Chand) poses any threat of their
combining together to commit a fresh crime or threatening witnesses or the
victim or whether any such threat can be averted by imposing conditions on
such co-accused. Therefore, tested on the principles laid out in Sandeep
(supra) , the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42

12. It is also pertinent to note that the competent authority had itself found

the petitioner fit for release on furlough on 13.08.2026 and the petitioner’s
record is relevant to that assessment. It is noticed that the petitioner has been
released on parole/interim bail/furlough twelve (12) times since 2017; the
details of the same are as under:

13. Considering that furlough already stands sanctioned, remanding the
matter to the concerned Authority would only delay the matter further.
Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. It is further directed that the
petitioner shall be released on furlough within a period of two (2) days for
three (3) weeks from the date of release on the same terms and conditions as
set out in the order No. F.10(3554984)/CJ/Legal/PHQ/2026/6230, dated
13.08.2026 (reproduced hereinabove). In addition, the petitioner shall not
meet or stay with any co-convict, including Dal Chand, during the furlough.
14. The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent
on expiry of the furlough. Any breach shall be taken into account in his future
application/s.
15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42

16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for

compliance.
17. Order Dasti .
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/ uk/vk


Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL.) 3446/2026 Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:03.11.2026
18:32:42