Convictions & Sentences Should Occur Within Continuous Period Of 5 years To Call Convict Habitual Offender: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Rejecting Furlough Application

The High Court was considering a Petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the competent authority, whereby the petitioner’s application for furlough was rejected. The petitioner also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release him on furlough for a period of three weeks.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma explained, “A plain and careful reading of the aforesaid definition makes it clear that a person can be termed a “habitual offender” only if all the following essential conditions are cumulatively satisfied:

• the person has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two occasions;
• such convictions and sentences have occurred within a continuous period of five years;
• while computing the said five-year period, any time spent in jail, either under sentence or detention, is to be excluded;
• the convictions must arise from offences committed on different occasions, and not from the offences forming part of same transaction; and
• the convictions relied upon must be final and subsisting, and not reversed in any appeal or review.”

Advocate (DHCLSC) Zeeshan Diwan represented the Petitioner while Additional Standing Counsel Yasir Rauf Ansari represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner is presently confined in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. He was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 364A,368,344,347,120B, and 34 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner had filed an application seeking a grant of the first spell of furlough, on the grounds of maintaining family relations and social ties, and to alleviate inner stress arising from long incarceration. Pursuant thereto, verification of the facts and contents of the application was sought from the concerned Police Department, and a Social Investigation Report was called for from the Chief Probation Officer by the jail authorities.

The said application was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender, rendering him ineligible for furlough under Rule 1223(ii) of the Delhi Prison Rules. The petition claimed that he fulfilled all eligibility criteria under Rule 1220 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner has been continuously in judicial custody since October 5, 2007. The first conviction recorded against him after his incarceration was on August 30, 2013, and all subsequent convictions were also recorded while he continued to remain in custody.

“In this Court’s opinion, the amended definition of “habitual offender” places clear emphasis on the expressions “has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment”. The definition does not provide that a person who has merely committed offences on more than two occasions within five years would become a habitual offender. What is material under the definition is the fact of ‘conviction and sentence‟, and not the mere commission of offences or registration of FIRs”, the order read.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since October 5, 2007, and all the convictions relied upon by the respondent authority were recorded thereafter. As per the Bench, once the period spent in jail was excluded, as mandatorily required by the proviso, there did not exist any continuous period of five years during which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two occasions.

Thus, holding that the petitioner does not satisfy the statutory requirements of being a “habitual offender” under the amended definition, the Bench set aside the impugned rejection of the petitioner’s furlough application. “However, the matter is remanded back to the competent authority for reconsideration of the petitioner’s furlough application afresh, in accordance with the DPR, 2018. It is clarified that the petitioner’s application shall not be rejected on the ground of his being a “habitual offender”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Vinod @ Vinode @ Bhole v. The State (Govt of NCT) Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:14)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate (DHCLSC) Zeeshan Diwan, Advocate Harsha

Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Yasir Rauf Ansari, Advocate Alok Sharma, SI Upendra Pandey

Click here to read/download Order