$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1878/2026 MANI SHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Puja Bhusari Soni Advocate (DHCLSC) versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 03.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 18793/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 1878/2026 1. The petitioner vide the instant petition seeks to challenge the impugned communication dated 15.05.2026, whereby, the decision of rejection of his application for grant of furlough has been taken. The petitioner has been convicted pursuant to FIR No.53/2013 registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar for the offence punishable under Section 302/307/394/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment and is currently lodged in Central Jail No.2, Tihar, New Delhi. 2. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction came to be rejected on 28.10.2022. The nominal role of the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:36:23 has undergone 13 years 1 month and 16 days sentence as on 10.06.2026 excluding the interim bail period. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision in the case of Vinod@ Vinode @ Bhole vs. State (GNCTD)1, submits that convictions recorded during continuous incarceration cannot render a prisoner a habitual offender. It is, thus, submitted that the furlough is the right of the convict in order to achieve a reformative object and the same ought to have been accepted. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned communication and submitted that the competent authority has duly considered the furlough application of the petitioner and rejected the same after classifying him as a “habitual offender”. 5. It is pointed out that the impugned communication records that the petitioner is undergoing sentence in three different criminal cases and is also facing trial in another criminal case. On the basis of the said antecedents, the competent authority has held that the petitioner squarely falls within the definition of a “habitual offender” under the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 6. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the advisory dated 30.12.2024 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha Vs. Union of India2. According to the said advisory, a habitual offender is a person who, during any continuous period of five years, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two 1 W.P.(CRL.) 3044/2025 2Writ (Civil) No.1404 of 2023 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:36:23 occasions for one or more offences committed on different occasions and not forming part of the same transaction, provided such convictions have not been reversed in appeal or review. The advisory further clarifies that, while computing the continuous period of five years, the period spent in jail either under a sentence of imprisonment or under detention shall be excluded. 7. It is, therefore, contended that, having regard to the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the applicable Guidelines; the competent authority has rightly classified the petitioner as a habitual offender and rejected his application for furlough. Accordingly, the impugned order is stated to be legal, justified, and not warranting any interference by this Court. 8. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. The said Rule is extracted as under:- “1223. In order to be eligible to obtain furlough, the prisoner must fulfill the following criteria:- I. Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct reports and continues to maintain good conduct. II. The prisoner should not be a habitual offender. III. The prisoner should be a citizen of India.” 9. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties and perused the record. 10. A bare perusal of the nominal roll indicates that the petitioner has been convicted in five FIRs and the sentences awarded in all the said cases, including the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine, have already been undergone by the petitioner as on 11.12.2023. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:36:23 11. The second reason assigned for rejecting the petitioner's application is that he is undergoing sentence in three different criminal cases and is also facing trial in other criminal cases. However, apart from the said assertion, the impugned communication does not advert to the particulars of the cases allegedly forming the basis of such conclusion, though reference has been made to paragraph 2 of the communication dated 15.05.2026, the nominal roll does not indicate any other pending criminal cases except the five cases, where the conviction was awarded and the said period has already undergone. 12. The Court finds that there is a clear disparity between the reasons assigned in the impugned communication for rejecting the application, and the particulars reflected in the nominal roll. While the impugned communication records that the petitioner is undergoing sentences in three different criminal cases and is also facing trial in other criminal cases, the nominal roll reflects that the petitioner stands convicted in five cases and does not indicate the pendency of any criminal case. Thus, the reason assigned in the impugned communication, to the extent it proceeds on the premise that the petitioner is facing trial in other criminal cases, is not borne out from the nominal roll. The discrepancies noticed above warrant a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s application by the competent authority after verifying the relevant records and removing the inconsistencies, so that an appropriate decision is taken in accordance with the applicable Guidelines and the factual record. 13. In view of the aforesaid, instead of issuing the notice to the respondent and asking it to file the reply, the Court deems it appropriate to set aside the communication dated 15.05.2026. Accordingly, the said communication stands set aside. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:36:23 14. The matter is directed to be remitted back to the competent authority to reconsider the same in accordance with Rule 1223 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and the applicable circular etc. 15. Let a fresh decision be taken by the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today and the same shall also be communicated to the petitioner without any undue delay. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 3, 2026 Nc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2026 at 10:36:23