Delhi High Court
Jitender @ Kalla vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 July, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.07.2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025
JITENDER @ KALLA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor and Mr.
Kushal Mehta, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC
for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks issuance of
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order bearing number
F.10(3670839)/CJ/Legal/PHQ/2024/6774 dated 01.10.2024, passed
by the Office of Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters,
Tihar, and issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus seeking grant
of first spell of furlough for a period of 21 days.
2. As evident from records, the petitioner herein is presently
lodged in Central Jail No. 4, Tihar, New Delhi, and is serving life
sentence awarded to him in cases arising out of FIR No. 67/1999,
registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi, for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code,
Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:09.07.2025
17:58:28
1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] and FIR No. 68/1999, registered at Police
Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 302/120B of the IPC.
3. The trial in both the aforesaid FIRs was concluded and the
appellant was convicted for the alleged offences vide judgments and
orders on sentence dated 17.03.2010. However, the petitioner had
assailed the said judgments and orders by way of appeals (i.e.
CRL.A. 666/2010 and 667/2010), and this Court had ordered re-trial
in these cases. After re-trial, the petitioner was again convicted in
these FIRs by the learned Trial Court vide judgments and orders on
sentence dated 01.07.2013. In FIR No. 67/1999, P.S. Keshav Puram,
he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life (not to be considered
for remission till he completes 30 years of actual incarceration) for
offence under Section 302 of IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 10
years for offence under Section 307 of IPC. In FIR No. 68/1999, P.S.
Mukherjee Nagar, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life
(for rest of natural life) for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Against
these orders, appeals were preferred by the petitioner (i.e. CRL.A.
966/2013 and 967/2013) before this Court, and while his conviction
was upheld, the embargo of no remission till 30 years was removed.
However, this direction was thereafter set aside by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court and the orders of the learned Trial Court were upheld,
and it was further directed that the sentences awarded in both these
cases shall run concurrently.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:09.07.2025
17:58:28
the petitioner has already undergone incarceration of about 24 years
and 7 months, without remission.. He submits that the petitioner was
released on parole/furlough on five occasions. It is submitted that the
petitioner was lastly granted furlough w.e.f. 14.03.2024 to
29.03.2024 but his surrender was stayed by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court till 18.05.2024. It is stated that the petitioner inadvertently
failed to surrender on time and he had finally surrendered on
30.05.2024 i.e. twelve days late. It is further stated that the petitioner
has faced long incarceration and needs to combat inner stress and
depression arising out of prolonged incarceration. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present petition be
allowed and the petitioner be granted furlough.
5. On the other hand, the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the
State argues the petitioner had not surrendered on time, on the expiry
of the period of parole, and had surrendered late by 12 days. It is also
pointed out that the petitioner had also escaped from the custody on
15.07.2004 from AIIMS and was re-arrested on 11.08.2004. It is also
argued that his overall jail conduct is also not satisfactory. Therefore,
it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties and has perused the material placed on record.
7. In the present case, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the
order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the concerned Competent
Authority vide which his application for grant of furlough has been
rejected. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:
Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:09.07.2025
17:58:28
“In this regard, I am directed to inform you that the Competent
Authority has considered the application for grant of furlough
and same has been declined at this stage for 12 days late
surrender meaning thereby overstaying on furlough Ignoring
the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
18.05.2024 in SLP(Crl.) No. 4299/2024. The Rule 1239 of
DPR-2018 clearly stipulates that overstaying on furlough
would amount to misconduct on the part of the prisoner.
Considering the fact that furlough is a reward to a convict and
requires “continuing good conduct” as one of the pre-requisite
condition, hence, the application of furlough of the convict has
been considered and declined by the competent authority in
view of above facts.”
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner, after being released on
furlough from 14.03.2024 to 29.03.2024 had not surrendered on time.
However, it is material to note that the surrender of the petitioner was
stayed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Eventually, vide order dated
09.05.2025, he was granted three weeks‟ time to surrender. However,
notably, the said order was re-called by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
on 18.05.2025. Thus, the petitioner was required to surrender before
the jail authorities on 18.05.2025. However, he surrendered on
30.05.2024 i.e. about 12 days late.
9. The delay in surrender, in the peculiar facts of the case,
appears to be a natural consequence of the circumstances. After the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court had granted three weeks’ time to surrender,
the subsequent recall of that order on 18.05.2025 may not have come
to the petitioner‟s knowledge immediately. Thus, the delay of about
12 days in surrendering does not appear to be deliberate or wilful.
10. As per nominal roll, the petitioner had been issued a warning
for late surrender. The impugned order is premised on the ground that
Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:09.07.2025
17:58:28
Rule 1239 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 provides that overstaying
furlough would amount to misconduct on the part of prisoner. But it
is relevant to note that the said Rule itself mentions that punishment
„may‟ be awarded to the prisoner in such a case. Further, as per Rule
1178 of the Delhi Prison Rules, an inmate shall be eligible for Annual
Good Conduct Remission, and any „warning‟ given to him for a
prison offence shall not be taken into account. Moreover, by way of
an order dated 07.06.2019, the Standing Order No. 01/2019 was
modified to the extent that in case a warning is issued to a convict,
the shall not come in way of granting furlough to a convict.
11. It is clear from records that except the fact that a warning was
issued to the petitioner for surrendering twelve days late in May,
2024, no misconduct has been reported against the petitioner for the
last more than 13 years. The petitioner has been in jail for more than
24 years, without remission, and has been working as a Chakkar
Sahayak.
12. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to Rules 1197
and 1200 of the Delhi Prison Rules, which read as under:
“1197. Parole and Furlough to inmates are progressive
measures of correctional services. The release of a prisoner on
parole not only saves him from the evils of incarceration but
also enables him to maintain social relations with his family
and community. It also helps him to maintain and develop a
sense of self-confidence. Continued contacts with family and
the community sustain in him a hope for life. The release of
prisoner on furlough motivates him to maintain good conduct
and remain disciplined in the prison.
1200. The objectives of releasing a prisoner on parole and
furlough are:
Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:09.07.2025
17:58:28
i. To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family
life and deal with familial and social matters,
ii. To enable him to maintain and develop his self- confidence,
iii. To enable him to develop constructive hope and active
interest in life,
iv. To help him remain in touch with the developments in the
outside world,
v. To help him remain physiologically and psychologically
healthy,
vi. To enable him to overcome/recover from the stress and evil
effects of incarceration, and
vii. To motivate him to maintain good conduct and discipline in
the prison…”
13. It is evident that Rules 1197 and 1200 provide that the
provision of furlough and parole are progressive and correctional
measures, and lay down the objectives of furlough and parole. The
petitioner also fulfils other conditions for grant of furlough as per
Rule 1223.
14. Therefore, considering the aforesaid, and the period of
incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant furlough
to the present petitioner for a period of three (03) weeks, on the
following conditions:
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.
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.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:09.07.2025
17:58:28
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 be contacted if required. The
said telephone number shall be kept active and
operational at all the times by the petitioner.
iv. Immediately upon the expiry of period of furlough, the
petitioner shall surrender before the Jail Superintendent.
v. The period of furlough shall be counted from the day
when the petitioner is released from jail.
15. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of.
16. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information and compliance.
17. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 08, 2025/A
Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 1563/2025 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:09.07.2025
17:58:28
[ad_1]
Source link