Delhi High Court
Moti @ Mohit vs State, Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.07.2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 937/2025
MOTI @ MOHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hemendra Jailiya,
Advocate
versus
STATE, NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC
for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
CRL.M.A. 19564/2025 (grant of extension of furlough)
1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking
extension of furlough - which was granted to the petitioner vide order
dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Director General (Prisons), Tihar Jail,
New Delhi and is to expire on 12.07.2025 - till the next date of
hearing in the main petition.
2. The facts, as apparent from the records, are that the applicant
herein is presently confined in Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi,
in relation to case arising out of FIR No. 428/2004, registered at
Police Station Defence Colony for offence punishable under Sections
302/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter 'IPC'], wherein
he was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court to undergo
a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction of the
petitioner was also upheld by this Court as well as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
3. As on date, the petitioner has undergone an actual sentence of
about 19 years and 07 months, excluding the remission of about 3
years and 10 months.
4. The above-captioned writ petition was preferred by the
petitioner inter alia challenging the rejection order dated 13.02.2025
passed by the Sentence Review Board (SRB) whereby the premature
release of the petitioner has been denied.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner's case has been recommended for premature release by
the jail authorities on multiple occasions, including 27.08.2021,
30.06.2023, 23.02.2024, and 10.12.2024. However, despite such
recommendations, the SRB has rejected his case on each occasion by
citing identical and repetitive grounds, without proper application of
mind. It is contended that the SRB has mechanically declined the
petitioner's request by merely relying upon police objections or by
referring to the gravity and heinousness of the offence, without
engaging with the individual facts and the petitioner's overall
conduct in prison. It is further submitted that vide order dated
24.03.2025, this Court issued notice in the writ petition and called for
a status report from the State. Thereafter, vide order dated
24.06.2025, the DG (Prisons), Tihar Jail, granted the petitioner a
second spell of furlough for a period of two weeks. The petitioner
was accordingly released from custody on 27.06.2025. The learned
counsel further submits that on 04.07.2025, the captioned writ
petition was listed for arguments before this Court. However, due to
the non-availability of the learned counsel for the State, the matter
was adjourned to 25.07.2025. Thus, in the meantime, the petitioner
has approached this Court seeking extension of furlough till the next
date of hearing, or for any such further.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for
over 23 years, and the rejection of his case for premature release has
been based on grounds that are ex facie vague and arbitrary. It is
further pointed out that the petitioner has been granted parole on 8
occasions and furlough on 13 occasions and has never misused the
liberty granted to him. In view thereof, it is urged that no prejudice
would be caused to the State if the present application seeking
extension of furlough is allowed for a limited period.
7. The learned ASC appearing for the State, on the other hand,
argues that the petitioner cannot seek any extension of furlough
merely on the ground that he has filed the captioned writ petition
challenging the decision of the SRB refusing his premature release. It
is also argued that permitting such a practice would open the
floodgates for convicts to bypass the statutory process for premature
release by seeking parole or furlough till disposal of their petitions
filed before the Courts, which is not contemplated under the law.
8. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties, and has pursued the case file.
9. This Court is conscious of the fact that the question of whether
a convict is to be released prematurely falls within the domain of the
SRB, which is required to decide such matters in accordance with the
policy prevailing at the relevant time, as well as in line with the
guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
catena of decisions. When a convict approaches a constitutional court
challenging an order of rejection passed by the SRB, particularly in
cases where the convict is otherwise eligible for consideration under
the applicable policy, the Court is empowered to examine whether
the SRB has adhered to the governing policy and applied its mind to
the relevant material before it.
10. However, the pendency of such a writ petition before this
Court cannot, in itself, become a ground for seeking an extension of
furlough or parole granted to such a period for an indefinite period.
Merely because the petitioner has been incarcerated for a substantial
period of time, or because he is eligible for consideration by the SRB,
or even because he claims that the rejection of his premature release
was arbitrary or mechanical - such grounds cannot be sufficient to
claim, as a matter of right, extension of furlough or parole until final
adjudication of his petition. The grant of parole or furlough is a
temporary concession or relief, granted to a convict, governed by the
Delhi Prison Rules and the same cannot be treated as a substitute for
premature release or bail.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that extension
of furlough granted to the petitioner by the competent authority,
solely on the ground that the main writ petition challenging the
SRB's order is pending adjudication, would not be justified in law.
12. This Court thus finds no merit in this application. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
13. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 15, 2025/vc
