W.P.(CRL)/2269/2026 of MAHESH @ VIKRAM Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 31 July 2026

O R D E R

%

31.07.2026

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to release him on furlough for the current conviction year, in terms of the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the Office of the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner was granted furlough for a period of three weeks.

2. Pursuant to FIR No. 385/2010 registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 302/34/174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, the learned Sessions Court, by judgment dated 08.06.2017, convicted the petitioner of the said offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

The petitioner’s conviction and sentence were subsequently affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 595/2018. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment was thereafter dismissed by the Supreme Court.

3. The petitioner has undergone approximately 11 years and 8 months of actual custody and has earned remission of 1 year and 9 months. In view thereof, the petitioner applied for the first spell of furlough for the current conviction year, which was granted for a period of three weeks vide order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the respondent.

4. The petitioner’s grievance is that, notwithstanding the grant of furlough in his favour, the respondent has failed to release him on the ground that his co-accused, Ranjeet Singh @ Rahul, has been released on interim bail for a period of 21 days pursuant to an order dated 20.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Court.

5. I have heard Mr. Anup Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Rupali Bandophadhya, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

6. The State relies upon Note 1 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which provides that the simultaneous release of co-accused convicts on furlough is ordinarily impermissible and, where the co- convicts are family members, may be permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

7. In the present case, Mr. Das submits that the aforesaid Note has no application, as the co-accused, who has been released, is still facing trial and is not a convict. Consequently, his release is not by way of furlough.

8. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that, apart from the co- accused who is still facing trial, six other accused stand convicted in the present case.

9. Mr. Das has also drawn my attention to an order dated 29.04.2026 passed in W.P.(CRL) 1389/2026, wherein similar relief was granted to a co-accused in another case.

10. Ms. Bandopadhya, on instructions, states that there is no allegation of the petitioner having misused the liberty granted to him on any previous occasion. She also does not dispute that the respondent itself, vide order dated 10.07.2026, found the petitioner eligible for release on furlough and granted him furlough for a period of three weeks, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough in terms of the order dated 10.07.2026. The respondent is, accordingly, directed to release the petitioner on furlough, subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated in the said order and the further condition that the petitioner shall not establish any contact with the co-accused who is presently on interim bail.

12. The petition, alongwith pending application, is disposed of in the above terms. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 31, 2026 SS/SD/