The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition challenging the denial of four weeks furlough to a life convict, affirming that prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment are ineligible for furlough under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022.
The petitioner, convicted for murder with ransom threat and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine, sought temporary release on furlough for four weeks to attend to elderly parents and restore social ties. The request was rejected by the jail superintendent citing Section 4(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022, which excludes certain categories of convicts, including life prisoners, from furlough eligibility. The petitioner challenged this denial by invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, claiming wrongful and arbitrary rejection despite his good conduct and earned remission.
The petitioner had served his sentence since 2005 and filed appeals which were dismissed. He had also availed multiple paroles/furloughs previously. The Superintendent of Jail declined to forward his furlough request to higher authorities, contending legal ineligibility under the newly enacted Haryana Act. The State opposed the writ, maintaining the petitioner’s exclusion based on the statutory provisions for serious offenses and life sentences.
The petitioner’s counsel stressed good conduct and genuine personal reasons for furlough, objecting to the summary denial without due process. The State’s counsel clarified that parole/furlough is discretionary, not a right, and ineligibility is absolute for life convicts under the updated law.
The Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Moudgil engaged in an extensive interpretation of Section 4(3) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, 2022, which expressly excludes life convicts from furlough entitlement. It held that temporary release depends on the law prevailing at the time of the application, not the conviction date.
The Court placed reliance on precedents, affirming that parole/furlough are discretionary privileges subject to statutory restrictions. It rejected arguments based on remission and good conduct as insufficient to override express statutory exclusion for life imprisonment convicts. It was also observed that the petitioner already enjoyed multiple furloughs and that security and public interest justify denial under the applicable law.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the jail superintendent’s order denying furlough dated 24 April 2025 was upheld. The Court underscored that furlough is not a vested right but a conditional concession. Life convicts, by statutory mandate in Haryana, are barred from furlough, and the petitioner’s temporary release application was refused in accordance with the prevailing law.
Cases relied on:
Ajay Jadeja alias Janak vs State of Haryana and Ors., Crl. W.P No. 2104 of 2012
Vakil Raj vs State of Haryana and Ors., 2015(93) PLJ (Criminal) 653
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr DAG, Haryana
