Court clarifies definition of "habitual offender" under Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, remands case for fresh consideration.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside a decision by the competent authority denying furlough to Vinod alias Vinode alias Bhole, an inmate at Central Jail No. 8, Tihar, New Delhi, on the grounds of being a "habitual offender". The court found that the rejection was based on an incorrect application of the definition of "habitual offender" under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, as amended by a 2024 circular issued by the Government of India.
Presided over by Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., the court examined the criteria under Rule 1223(ii) of the Delhi Prison Rules, which stipulates that a prisoner should not be classified as a habitual offender to be eligible for furlough. The amended definition states that a habitual offender is someone who, within a continuous period of five years, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two occasions, excluding any period spent in jail.
The petitioner, Vinod, has been in judicial custody since October 2007, with all subsequent convictions occurring during his incarceration. The court noted that since there was no continuous period of five years of liberty during which Vinod was convicted and sentenced on more than two occasions, he does not meet the criteria for a habitual offender under the amended rules.
The court emphasized that the emphasis should be on convictions and sentences within a continuous five-year period, excluding jail time, rather than merely the commission of offences. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's directive to adopt a uniform definition of "habitual offender" across states, following a judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India.
The court also pointed out Vinod's satisfactory conduct, as reflected in his nominal roll, and his history of complying with conditions during parole and furlough, except for an instance during emergency parole in 2021. Despite this, he was granted parole on three subsequent occasions, indicating no misuse of the liberty granted.
The matter has been remanded back to the competent authority for reconsideration of Vinod's application for furlough, with specific instructions to not reject it on the grounds of being a habitual offender. The court has directed the competent authority to pass a new order within four weeks, ensuring compliance with the amended rules.
This judgment underscores the importance of correctly interpreting statutory definitions and ensuring that administrative decisions align with the legal standards set forth in prison regulations, thereby safeguarding inmates' rights and promoting fair treatment within the judicial system.
Bottom Line:
Prisoner cannot be classified as a "habitual offender" under the amended definition if all convictions relied upon were recorded while the prisoner was already in judicial custody, and there does not exist any continuous five-year period of liberty during which he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on more than two occasions.
Statutory provision(s): Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 Rule 1223(ii), Sections 364A/368/344/347/120B/34 of the IPC, Circular No. V-17014/1/2024-PR.
Vinod @ Vinode @ Bhole v. State (Govt Of Nct) Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833641
