01Facts
The petitioner, serving life imprisonment in FIR No. 179/2011 and lodged in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, had been sanctioned furlough on 13 August 2026.
pp. 1–3On 22 September 2026, the Prisons Headquarters declined his release simultaneously with co-convict Dal Chand, identified as the petitioner’s nephew, relying on Note (1) to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and stating that the co-convicts were not related by blood.
pp. 1–3, 6The petitioner challenged that decision.
The Court also noted that he had previously been released on parole, interim bail, or furlough twelve times since 2017.
p. 602Issues
i.Whether Note (1) to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 prohibits simultaneous furlough to co-convicts, or instead permits it in the competent authority’s discretion.
pp. 4–6ii.Whether the authority’s refusal to release the petitioner simultaneously with Dal Chand was sustainable when it relied on the absence of a blood relationship without assessing the relevant risks or possible safeguards.
pp. 6–703Law Applied
Note (1) to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provides that simultaneous furlough to co-accused convicts is “ordinarily” impermissible, while allowing consideration in exceptional circumstances where they are family members.
p. 3In Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2050, the Division Bench held that “ordinarily” does not create an absolute prohibition: the competent authority retains discretion to grant simultaneous parole or furlough, but must examine the application strictly, including whether release could enable co-accused to commit further offences or threaten witnesses or victims, and whether conditions could avert any such risk.
pp. 4–6The reference to family members identifies a circumstance in which simultaneous release may be granted; it does not exhaust the circumstances in which the Rules permit it.
p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 363Section 34
04Reasoning
The impugned order gave only the absence of a blood relationship as its reason and did not determine whether a nephew qualified as a family member under the Rule.
p. 6More importantly, it treated the absence of blood relation as conclusive and failed to exercise the discretion required by the word “ordinarily.”
p. 6It made no assessment of the risk of the petitioner and Dal Chand combining to commit an offence or threaten witnesses or the victim, or whether conditions could manage any such risk.
p. 6In light of Sandeep and the petitioner’s prior furlough sanction and release history, the refusal could not stand; the Court considered remittal unnecessary because furlough had already been sanctioned.
p. 605Holding
The Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner be released on furlough within two days for three weeks, on the terms and conditions of the 13 August 2026 sanction order.
p. 7As an additional condition, he was prohibited from meeting or staying with any co-convict, including Dal Chand, during furlough.
p. 7He was directed to surrender to the Jail Superintendent upon expiry of the furlough, with any breach to be considered in future applications.
p. 7Original Court PDF
Raj KishorevsState (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
