New Delhi [India], June 28 : While directing the release of a jail inmate on furlough, the Delhi High Court has said that there is no complete prohibition concerning simultaneous furlough. The petitioner was not released despite a three-week furlough because his co-convict was already on furlough on medical grounds.
Petitioner was granted furlough on June 6 for three weeks as per Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, subject to certain conditions passed by the concerned Prison Authority.
Furlough refers to a temporary release of a prisoner from jail, granted for specific purposes, often to maintain family ties or address urgent personal matters. It is granted by the government authorities.
A vacation bench of Justice Manoj Jain on Friday directed the authorities to release convict Ajit Singh on a three-week furlough after considering that his nephew is getting married on June 30 and he is required to attend the main function like Bhaat, etc.
"Admittedly, even if a co-convict is on furlough, there is no complete prohibition in simultaneous furlough to the other convict, though, ordinarily, such simultaneous furlough is not permissible. This is quite obvious from Delhi Prison Rule, 2018," Justice Jain said in the order passed on June 27.
The High court said that the co-convict on furlough is though not a family member of the petitioner but fact remains that since there is no complete prohibition to simultaneous furlough, keeping in mind the fact that the nephew of the petitioner is getting married and if the furlough is postponed, the objective behind seeking furlough would stand frustrated and nullified.
"And, therefore, in the view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with direction to release the petitioner on first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks from 29.06.2025, on his adhering to the other conditions as mentioned in the order dated 06.06.2025," Justice Jain ordered.
Advocate Shannu Baghel, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the entire objective behind seeking furlough would stand frustrated if the petitioner is not permitted to join the marriage festivities.
He also submitted that the petitioner, being a maternal uncle (Mama), is required to participate in some of the main functions, including the bhaa,t etc.