The Delhi High Court has emphasised the importance of maintaining a reformative approach in the criminal justice system. The Court, while granting a two-week furlough to a convict serving a life sentence for the heinous crimes of rape and murder, rejected the notion that denying furlough to long-term prisoners would serve the interest of society.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Valmiki, filed a writ for quashing of an order dated 28th October 2022, issued by the respondent, the State of NCT of Delhi. The impugned order denied the petitioner's application for furlough, a temporary release from prison. The petitioner contended that the rejection of the furlough application was unjust.
The petitioner's conviction stemmed from a case involving the rape and murder of a minor under Sections 302/201/363/376(2)(F) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Initially sentenced to death, the petitioner's conviction was overturned in an appeal, leading to a re-trial. Subsequently, he received a life sentence without the possibility of remission for 25 years. The petitioner filed an application for furlough on 13th September 2022, which was rejected on grounds including the nature of the crime and opposition from the police authority.
Contentions of the Parties:
The respondent argued against the grant of furlough given the heinous nature of the crimes committed by the petitioner. It was stated that the release on furlough might pose a risk of reoffending and could create law and order issues. It was asserted that furlough is not an absolute right and can be denied in the interest of society as has been held in State of Gujarat v. Narayan.
The petitioner did not dispute the severity of the crimes committed. Instead, it was argued that the nature and gravity of the offence should not be the sole grounds for denying furlough. The petitioner cited the legal precedent in the judgment of Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, highlighting that even convicts of heinous crimes are eligible for furlough based on their conduct and adherence to jail regulations.
Observations by the Court:
The High Court held that depriving a convict of furlough solely based on the nature of the crime committed years ago would be counterproductive to the reformative goals of incarceration. The Court firmly dismissed the presumption that the released convict would pose a threat to society or engage in further criminal activities.
Referring to the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court held that furlough serves as an incentive for maintaining good conduct in prison. Even in cases where a convict is not entitled to remission and has been sentenced to life imprisonment, furlough can be granted to encourage positive behaviour during incarceration.
The judgment further highlighted the objectives of releasing a prisoner on furlough, as outlined in the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. These objectives include maintaining family ties, developing self-confidence, fostering a sense of hope, staying connected with the outside world, and promoting physical and psychological well-being.
Decision of the Court:
In consideration of the petitioner's satisfactory jail conduct over the past 12 years and the absence of any pending cases against him, Justice Bansal ruled that Sanjay Kumar Valmiki was entitled to a two-week furlough. The Court ordered the petitioner to provide a verified address within fifteen days and outlined specific conditions for his release, including regular reporting to the police station.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Valmiki vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 2771/2022
Advocates of the Petitioner: Mr. Faraz Maqbool (DHCLSC) and Ms. Chinmayi Chatterjee, Advocates.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Rishika, Advocates. SI Jogender, PS Maurya Enclave.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
