Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks furlough and also challenges the communication dated 21st August, 2018 whereby his request for release on furlough was declined.

2. The communication declining furlough of the Competent Authority reads as under: -

This is in reference to the captioned subject. In this regard, it is to inform you that Competent Authority has declined the application for grant of 1st Spell of furlough to the convict Deepander Kumar @ Chotu S/o Sh. Narsi Ram as the said convict is undergoing sentence in case under NDPS Act. The convicts under NDPS Act are not entitled for remissions as per Section 32A of NDPS Act, whereas furlough is a kind of remission granted to convicts. The convict Deepander Kumar @ Chotu S/o Sh. Narsi Ram has not earned any AGCR as required under para 26.1 of Parole/Furlough guidelines 2010 which states as under: -
26.1 "Good conduct in the Prison and should have earned Three Annual Good Conduct Remission and continues to maintain good conduct."

3. After the parole/furlough guidelines 2010, the Delhi Prison Rules 2018 have come into force which are in force w.e.f. 1 st January, 2019, Rule 1224 whereof dealing with furlough provides as under:-

"1224. The following categories of prisoners shall not be eligible for release on furlough:
i. Prisoners convicted under sedition, terrorist activities and NDPS Act.

4. From perusal of the rule of 1224 it is evident that the prisoners who has been convicted for sedition, terrorist activities and under NDPS Act will not be entitled to furlough.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was earlier also granted furlough. A perusal of the nominal roll reveals that though this Court granted furlough to the petitioner, however the parole/furlough guidelines of the Government were not brought to its notice and thus not considered.

6. In 2000 (8) SCC 437 Dadu @ Tulsidas Vs. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 32A of the NDPS Act held it ultra vires only to the extent it takes away the right of the Court to suspend the sentence or grant parole in a given case upholding it to the extent Section 32A takes away the power of the executive to remit or commute the sentence. Supreme Court also noting the distinction between parole and bail held that parole is not a suspension of the sentence, the convict continues to serve the sentence despite grant of parole under the statute or rules and is released temporarily for a specific purpose. It was held: