Ineligibility for furlough persists where convict repeatedly jumps parole and is re-arrested for fresh offences.

The petitioner is currently serving a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence at Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, for offences under Sections 376/506 of the IPC.

Initially acquitted by the Trial Court, he was convicted by the Delhi High Court in 2019, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, having completed over 7 years of his sentence, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection order dated 05.08.2025, passed by the Director General (Prisons), which denied his application for three weeks of furlough.

The state opposed the petition, citing the petitioner’s history of jumping parole on multiple occasions, resulting in two re-arrests, and his involvement in fresh criminal cases (FIR No. 369/2021) while on liberty.

1. Whether the Competent Authority’s rejection of the petitioner's furlough application was legally sustainable in light of his past conduct of absconding.

2. Whether a prisoner who has been re-arrested after jumping parole is eligible for release on furlough under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

The court primarily applied Rule 1223 and Rule 1224(iii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

Rule 1223 mandates "good conduct" as a prerequisite for furlough eligibility.

Crucially, Rule 1224(iii) creates an express bar against granting furlough to prisoners who have been "re-arrested who absconded while released on parole or furlough".

The court further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Gujarat v. Narayana (2021 SCC OnLine SC 949), which establishes that furlough is an incentive for good conduct and not an absolute legal right.

The court examined the petitioner’s conduct and found a repetitive pattern of abusing judicial trust.

Specifically, the court noted that in 2021, the petitioner jumped parole for over seven months and was only brought back to custody after being re-arrested for committing a new violent offence under Sections 307/332/353 of the IPC.

Furthermore, in 2024, the petitioner again failed to surrender following a parole extension, remaining at large for over a month until his re-arrest.

The court reasoned that these specific instances of absconding and re-arrest directly triggered the statutory embargo under Rule 1224(iii) of the Delhi Prison Rules.

Consequently, the petitioner’s argument regarding the reformative object of furlough was outweighed by his "propensity to commit crime" and failure to maintain the "good conduct" required by Rule 1223.

The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 and dismissed the writ petition.

However, it clarified that the petitioner is not precluded from filing fresh applications for parole or furlough in the future, which must be considered on their own merits by the Competent Authority.