Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The high court of Delhi on Friday held that a convict who has been awarded sentence for a particular period or for life with the stipulation that no remission will be granted to him in that period is not entitled to furlough during the said period while undergoing the sentence.
The petitioners Sanjay Kumar Valmiki and Chandrakant Jha were presented before the single bench of Justice Mukta Gupta of the High Court were rape and a murder convict. Convicted under the sections 302/376(2)(f)/363/201 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 25 years and life imprisonment respectively without remission.
The bench observed that, in the custody, the prisoner is entitled to reprieve by three different remedies that is bail during trial or pendency of the appeal, by parole or by the furlough.
The court observed that if any statue or court in the order of sentence has denied the remission to the prisoner not defining what kind of remission, then all kinds of remissions will be denied.
The bench said the “Consequently, as the sentences awarded to the petitioner's bar consideration for remission for a fixed number of years in the case of Sanjay Kumar Valmiki and for the remaining life in case of Chandra Kant Jha, the petitioners cannot be said to be eligible for grant of remission and consequently furlough.“
The court noted that the petitioner has neither challenged the validity of the provisions of the Delhi Prisoners Act and Delhi Prison Rules and nor have bought out rule 1171 creating a distinction, in respect of the class of cases in which more than 14 years of imprisonment without remission is an arbitrary exercise of powers.
The court also observed that “Though in the present decision this Court is not dealing with the issue of grant of parole, however, it would be appropriate to note that as per the Delhi Prison Rules, a convict can be considered for parole for one month after six months have elapsed from the first parole. Thus, a convict can be considered for roughly two paroles in a year to meet to exigency including to re-establish social ties.”
The court concluded observing that “By awarding the sentence to the petitioners in the third category the courts have already adopted a reformative approach. Further, as noted above, petitioners would be entitled to seek parole even for re-establishing social and family ties. Hence, the contention of learned counsels for the petitioners that in case furlough is not granted, the petitioners will be denied consideration of their case from a reformative angle is incorrect.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824