VIKAS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed order dtd. 5/12/2024 of the Competent Authority, whereby his request for furlough was rejected. The petitioner has also sought to be released on first spell of furlough for a period of three weeks in case FIR No.384/2009 of PS Sultanpuri for offences under Sec. 302/394/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Status report, opposing the petition was filed on behalf of respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned ASC for respondent.

(2.) By way of the impugned order dtd. 5/12/2024, the Competent Authority rejected the request of the petitioner to be released on furlough largely on the ground that on emergency parole he was released on 16/4/2021 (apparently the period of covid pandemic) and the release was extended from time to time till 6/4/2023; however, on 9/10/2021, the petitioner got involved in another case which was for offence under Sec. 21 NDPS Act. Thus, according to the impugned order the petitioner violated conditions of emergency parole. Further, the Competent Authority took a view that the overall conduct of petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, so he is not entitled to furlough.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned order is not sustainable insofar as the alleged involvement in fresh case under NDPS Act took place way back in the year 2021 and that cannot be a ground to deny the relief of furlough now.