Vicky @ Gobind v. State, 2026

The petitioner was a life convict who had been granted two weeks’ furlough.

Despite approval, jail authorities did not release him.

The reason given was that his co-convict was already out on parole.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief.

He stated that his presence was required for his daughter’s admission to Class XI.

He also expressed concern that the co-convict might extend parole, further delaying his release.

The applicable prison rules provided that simultaneous release of co-convicts is ordinarily not permitted, but not absolutely barred.

The Court held that presence of a co-convict on parole cannot be a ground to deny furlough.

It clarified that the rule against simultaneous release is not absolute but only directory (“ordinarily”).

The Court emphasized that furlough is an incentive for good conduct, not a privilege to be arbitrarily denied.

It observed that such technical objections should not become a “stumbling block”, especially in genuine situations.

The Court took note of the petitioner’s need to assist in his daughter’s school admission.

It held that denial of release in such circumstances would defeat the reformative objective of furlough.

Accordingly, the Court directed the competent authority to release the petitioner within three days for the already sanctioned furlough period.

The judgment reinforces the reformative and rehabilitative purpose of furlough.

It distinguishes between mandatory and directory rules, ensuring flexible application.

The Court adopts a humanitarian approach, recognizing family responsibilities of prisoners.

It prevents arbitrary administrative decisions by prison authorities.

The ruling strengthens the principle that prison rights are part of broader constitutional protections.

It contributes to jurisprudence promoting dignity and reintegration of prisoners into society.