Furlough not a right, but a concession, can be denied in rarest of rare cases: Punjab and Haryana HC

“Furlough is a discretionary concession, not a vested right,” the judge observed, stressing that applications must be decided under the law in force on the date of consideration, not on the date of conviction.

Sonu was convicted under sections including 302 and 364-A IPC for abducting and killing a man for ransom in Sonipat. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 38,000, with his appeal dismissed in 2012. He is currently lodged in District Jail, Sonipat.

Seeking temporary release, the petitioner cited the need to look after his elderly parents and restore family ties. He argued that his good conduct in jail earned him remission and made him eligible for furlough.

However, the jail superintendent rejected his request on April 24, 2025, citing Section 4(3) of the 2022 Act. The provision specifically excludes convicts sentenced for crimes such as murder with intent to collect ransom, sexual offences against minors, and cases attracting imprisonment till natural life.

Petitioner’s counsel argued that the superintendent acted arbitrarily without referring the matter to higher authorities and ignored his remission record. The state, represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Baljinder Singh Virk, countered that the petitioner had already availed parole 16 times under the earlier law but remains ineligible under the 2022 Act.

The court agreed with the State, citing precedents that parole and furlough are privileges, not fundamental rights, and that amended rules apply to all convicts irrespective of the date of conviction.

“Parole and furlough exist to humanize prison administration, but their grant must not compromise societal security,” the judge said. He clarified that while parole may be considered in some situations, furlough can be denied in “the rarest of rare cases” involving heinous crimes.

Applying this principle, the court concluded that Sonu falls in the category of “hardcore prisoners” under the 2022 Act and does not meet the criteria for release.

Dismissing the petition as “devoid of merit,” the court upheld the superintendent’s order and reinforced that concessions like parole and furlough remain subject to prevailing policy and statutory restrictions.