W.P.(CRL)/2084/2026 of IRSHAD @ BABLOO Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 17 August 2026

O R D E R

%

17.08.2026

1. The petitioner has approached this Court, under Article 226 of the constitution, seeking modification of the conditions imposed by the respondent – Authority for grant of furlough to him to the extent that the requirement of one surety of Rs.10,000/- be replaced by a cash surety.

2. By order dated 20.07.2026, it was recorded as follows: “1. The petitioner was convicted of offences under Sections 302/147/148/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 694/2016, registered at Police Station Bhalaswa Dairy, District North, Delhi. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and remains incarcerated in Central Jail No.14, Mandoli.

2. He made an application for a spell of furlough in the current conviction year, and his application was allowed by the respondent – authority vide order dated 30.09.2025 granting him furlough for a period of three weeks. One of the conditions imposed was that he would furnish one surety of Rs. 10,000/-, alongwith a personal bond to the like amount, for his release.

3. The petitioner sought modification of the said condition, on the ground that he is unable to arrange the surety. The request was declined by the competent authority on 13.11.2025. The petitioner then approached this Court by way of a writ petition [W.P.(CRL.) 534/2026]. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.03.2026, on the basis of a status report filed by the respondent – authority, in which it stated that the petitioner’s aunt – Ms. Mehraj, had already furnished a surety in connection with an earlier spell of furlough granted to the petitioner and had expressed her willingness to furnish a surety on this occasion as well.

4. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, however, the petitioner states that his aunt is now unwilling to give surety.

5. As a result, the petitioner has now filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking similar relief, i.e. modification of the aforesaid conditions.”

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the State has placed on record a status report, in which the relatives of the petitioner have been enumerated, including his mother, seven siblings and four maternal/paternal uncles, including one resident in Delhi. However, the State has verified that none of the petitioner’s family members or relatives expressed their willingness to stand surety for him.

4. In these circumstances, the condition imposed by the respondent leads to depravation of the petitioner’s personal liberty on the ground that he is unable to furnish surety as required. Mr. Shannu Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Ajay Verma v. Govt. of NCT Delhi [2018 SCC OnLine Del 7960] in this connection.

5. Having regard to this position, the condition of furnishing a surety for Rs.10,000/-, alongwith a personal bond, is substituted by cash surety, but the amount of cash surety is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, in addition to the personal bond. The remaining conditions of the order of furlough dated 30.09.2025 will remain applicable.

6. As the furlough was granted for the conviction year commencing 21.08.2025, the present order will operate in respect of the said conviction year.

7. The petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 17, 2026 SS/AD/