Arun Chauhan vs State Gnct Of Delhi
2026 Latest Caselaw 374 Del

Delhi High Court

Arun Chauhan vs State Gnct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2026

                          $~64
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                            Date of Decision: 28th January, 2026
                          +      W.P.(CRL) 293/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2834/2026
                                 ARUN CHAUHAN                                               .....Petitioner
                                                       Through:       Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Mr. Krishna
                                                                      Kumar Keshav, Advocates (through
                                                                      V.C.)
                                                       versus

                                 STATE GNCT OF DELHI                                       .....Respondent
                                              Through:                Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel
                                                                      (Crl.) for State with SI Pankaj Kumar,
                                                                      PS Jyoti Nagar.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
                                              J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The relief sought in the present petition is very short and precise.

2. Petitioner i.e. Arun Chauhan prayed for grant of second spell of furlough for a period of two weeks in the current conviction year. The Competent Authority (Prisons) was pleased to accede to such request and directed his release subject to five conditions. Condition No.1 reads as under:-

"1. That he shall furnish cash surety of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) alongwith a personal bond in the like amount for his release on Furlough to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail No.2."

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not arrange the abovesaid cash and though he had prayed for reduction of the amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, his such request was declined by the competent authority. Reference in this regard has been made to communication dated 07.01.2026.

4. It is apprised that on various previous occasions, the petitioner was granted furlough and he never misused liberty granted to him and surrendered immediately on expiry of the period of furlough.

5. Learned Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State submits that since petitioner has not so far been released and his previous conduct remained completely satisfactory, he would have no objection if the amount of surety is reduced.

6. Though, it is not comprehensible as to why there was, in the first place, direction to deposit cash surety of Rs.20,000/-, in view of the fact that the abovesaid order dated 10.11.2025 has yet not been implemented and the prayer is limited to the reduction of amount, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the amount of cash surety would be Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. The rest of the conditions would remain the same.

7. A copy of this order be sent to learned Superintendent, Jail for information and due compliance.

8. Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE JANUARY 28, 2026 st/js