Delhi High Court
Mr. Puschpender vs State & Anr. on 22 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 22nd April, 2019
+ W.P.(CRL) 884/2019
MR. PUSCHPENDER ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Adv. with Mr.
Amanpreet Singh, Adv. with SI
Vineet Kumar PS Narela.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The two prayers of the petitioner in the present petition are to grant
2nd and 3rd spell of furlough together so that he can avail the same in one go
and quash the punishment as approved on 10th January, 2019 for the alleged
incident dated 4th December, 2018.
2. As regards availing 2nd and 3rd spell of furlough together are
concerned, it is trite that furlough is a reward of good behaviour in the
prisons and as three spells of furlough are granted in one conviction year to
people who are eligible for the same; the three furloughs are therefore
required to be phased out so that the prisoner can avail the same at regular
intervals and be in touch with the society. If for any exigency a prisoner is
W.P.(CRL) 884/2019 page 1 of 3
required to be released, he has the option of taking parole which can also be
exercised by the competent authority. Thus this Court finds no ground to
permit the application of the petitioner directing that the 2 nd and 3rd spell of
furlough be granted to the petitioner together.
3. As regards quashing of the punishment approved on 10th January,
2019 is concerned, the order dated 27th December, 2018 in this regard reads
as under:
"On 03.12.2018, convict Pushpender s/o Babul al has filed an
application in Convict office for grant of 2nd & 3rd spell of
furlough together.
On 04.12.2018, aforesaid convict was called in the Convict
Office and informed that application for grant of two spells of
furlough together cannot be processed by this office and he was
advised to apply for 2nd spell of furlough after 18.12.2018, but
he threatened that if my application will not be forwarded, he
may approach the Hon'ble Jail Visiting Judge and Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi for necessary directions.
Accordingly, a file was moved by this office to Prison
Headquarters seeking clarification whether his application for
grant of two spells of furlough together can be processed by this
office or not and Competent Authority has directed to register
necessary punishment against the convict as pressurising jail
authority is a punishable offence.
As per Delhi Jail Manual Chapter XI Rule 46 Sub Para 4 "The
use of insulting or threatening language" is declared to be
prison offence and act of the aforesaid convict falls under this
category, hence he may be punished suitably."
4. A perusal of the allegations against the petitioner as noted reveals that
when his file was not processed for two spells of furlough together and he
was advised to apply for 2nd spell of furlough after 18th December, 2018 he
W.P.(CRL) 884/2019 page 2 of 3
threatened that if his application will not be forwarded he may approach the
Jail Visiting Judge and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for necessary
directions.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State emphasising on Chapter XI
Section 46 of the Delhi Prisons Act 2000 states that as per sub-Section 4 of
Section 46 "use of insulting or threatening language" is a prison offence.
6. Though there is some merit in the arguments of learned Standing
Counsel for the State, however the fact remains that in the order impugned
the finding of the competent authority is that the petitioner stated that
"petitioner threatened that if his application would not be forwarded, he may
approach the Jail visiting Judge and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi" for
necessary directions. Approaching Judicial Foras and availing of legal
remedies cannot be said to be a threat. Further, said language used by the
petitioner cannot be termed to be falling within the ambit of the words "the
use of insulting or threatening language" under Section 46 of Section 4 of
the Delhi Prisons Act 2000.
7. Thus the punishment awarded to the petitioner as approved on 10th
January, 2019 is set aside. Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 22, 2019
'ga'
W.P.(CRL) 884/2019 page 3 of 3
