Convict's furlough plea : HC seeks personal presence of DG Prisons

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday sought personal presence of the Director General of Prisons to explain the one month delay in processing the furlough plea of a murder convict.

Justice Mukta Gupta asked the DG Prisons to explain, on affidavit, "why so much time was consumed in verification" of the convict's application for two-week furlough and listed the matter for hearing on October 1, when the official has been directed to be personally present in court with all relevant records.

The court also noted that under the existing rules, the officials who delay the furlough process were liable for departmental enquiry and action.

The application for two weeks furlough of the convict, a software professional sentenced to life term for murder of his lover's husband, was allowed by the prison authority on August 24 barely a week before expiry of his conviction year on August 30, said his petition, filed through advocate Akshay Bhandari.

However, convict Rahul Dev was not released on the ground that only a week remained in his conviction year of 2017-18, it said. Under the prison rules, a convict is entitled to three spells, of three weeks, two weeks and two weeks, of furlough in each year of his sentence, which in the instant case was from August 29, 2017 to August 30, 2018.

Furlough is a right of a prison inmate to have leave for a certain period in a year when he can come out of jail.

The prisoner, in jail since his conviction in 2009, was granted a three-week furlough in June this year and after it ended, he had in July applied for a two-week furlough which was kept pending.

The court has directed the DG Prisons to explain this aspect as well in the affidavit along with the time taken by each prison official for verifying the facts in the furlough application.

Another issue was raised by Bhandari that the prison authorities specifically the Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent were not attesting affidavits of prisoners, represented by private lawyers, for filing of their appeals or any writ petition.

They were attesting the affidavits only if the prisoner was represented by a legal aid lawyer, he claimed.

Taking note of the submission, the court directed the DG Prisons to also place on record the rules, regulations or policy which do not permit attestation of prisoner’s affidavits by the Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent of the jail if the inmate is represented by private counsel.

According to the police, Dev was having an affair with his maid who was later sent away to her village by her husband after coming to know of the relationship.

Thereafter, to take revenge, the convict had invited the husband to his flat, which he shared with three others.

After getting the man drunk, the convict had killed him on the roof of the building and chopped up his body, police had said.

However, Dev's roommates suspected something wrong and informed the police and he was arrested before he could dispose of the body.