In a judicial pronouncement aimed at addressing recurring issues concerning delayed surrenders by convicts released on parole or furlough, the Delhi High Court has directed jail authorities to ensure that a written note specifying the date of surrender is handed over to every convict at the time of their release. The convict must also acknowledge receipt of the note to avoid future ambiguity.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that many convicts, particularly those facing literacy or awareness gaps, often fail to return on time due to confusion about their surrender dates, resulting in punitive consequences. The Court held that a mere oral assertion or unsubstantiated claim by jail officials that the convict was "informed" is insufficient for procedural fairness.
The petitioner, Mohd Alam, had challenged the rejection of his furlough application by the Competent Authority. The rejection was based on the allegation that he had previously "jumped parole" and was accordingly punished with a warning, affecting his eligibility for furlough for one year.
It was alleged that the petitioner had failed to surrender on the scheduled date, following his release on extended emergency parole during the COVID-19 period. He was subsequently taken into custody after failing to surrender, which resulted in the imposition of disciplinary action.
The Court noted that no documentary evidence was placed on record to show that the convict had been informed in writing of the date by which he was required to surrender. Although the prosecution's status report claimed that the surrender date was communicated via mobile phone, no corroborative material was submitted to support this assertion.
Justice Kathpalia remarked that repeated instances of delayed surrenders caused by illiteracy or lack of clarity call for institutional safeguards. Referring to past directions issued in similar matters, the Court reiterated that it is imperative for jail authorities to convey the date of surrender in a written, acknowledged format.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the rejection order and directed the petitioner’s immediate release on his first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent. It further directed the Jail Superintendent to provide the petitioner, at the time of release, with a specific date of surrender in writing. Additionally, the Court ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Director General (Prisons) to ensure institutional compliance with the directions contained in paragraph 5 of the order.
Case Title: Mohd. Alam Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 3499/2024
Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Advocate for Petitioner: Advocate Satyam Thareja
