Delhi High Court has reiterated that a conviction for committing sexual offences should not be the sole reason for denying an eligible prisoner the benefit of furlough. The judgment emphasised the importance of maintaining social ties with family and friends, which aligns with the objectives of furlough, as outlined in the Delhi Prison Rules 2018.
Brief Facts of the Case:
Gopi Nisha Mallah, the petitioner, had been serving a life sentence and had already spent approximately 9 years and 7 months in custody. The petitioner applied for a first spell of Furlough for three weeks to the DG (Prisons), which was subsequently rejected by the Delhi Government on September 4, 2023, based on conviction under Sections 325, 363, and 376(2)(I)&(M) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)
Contentions of the Parties:
Petitioner’s Contentions:
The petitioner argued that the Delhi Government had erroneously denied him furlough on incorrect grounds and without proper consideration. He contended that he met the criteria specified in the Delhi Prison Rules 2018 for furlough, and he had received three consecutive Annual Good Conduct Reports. The petitioner also highlighted that his conduct inside the jail had been satisfactory. He mentioned that despite the earlier incident of late surrender during emergency parole, he had subsequently surrendered on time when granted parole again.
Respondent's Contentions:
The respondent, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel, argued that considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner and an adverse police report, he should not be released on furlough.
Observations by the Court:
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, ruled that a conviction for committing sexual offences should not be the sole reason for denying an otherwise eligible prisoner the benefit of furlough. The reasoning behind this decision lay in the recognition of the progressive nature of furlough as a correctional measure. The Court considered the petitioner’s lengthy period of incarceration, which amounted to about 9 years and 7 months, along with the fact that he had previously been granted interim bail and parole without any instances of misusing these liberties or late surrenders. The Court also noted the petitioner’s satisfactory conduct in jail, with no records of misconduct. In light of these factors, the Court concluded that the denial of furlough to the petitioner, solely based on the nature of his conviction, was erroneous.
Decision of the Court:
Therefore, the Court allowed the petitioner’s plea, setting aside the order that denied him furlough, and granted him a 21-day furlough under specific conditions, marking a significant precedent in correctional and legal practice.
Case Title: Gopi Nisha Mallah V. State Of NCT Of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No.: WP (CRL.) 2836/2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Faraz Maqbool
Advocate for the Respondent: Anand V Khatri
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :