Lajpat @ Billu v. State

$~7.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1040/2016 LAJPAT @ BILLU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vikas Padora, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 14.07.2016 The petitioner challenges the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the office of Director General (Prisons) declining the application for grant of furlough to the petitioner. It is seen that as per the said order, the petitioner convict has been punished 41 times since 2007 till date, and he has not earned three annual good conduct remissions. His case has been rejected as he was not found eligible as per para 26.1 of Parole/furlough Guidelines2010. The nominal roll shows that the petitioner has been inflicted punishments practically each year from 2007 to 2015 with the exception of the year 2009. There are 41 such instances when he has been punished due to his bad behaviour in jail.

In these circumstances, no error can be found with the impugned

order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. At the same time, in case the petitioner is eligible under the guidelines, he may apply for parole, and in case such an application is made, the same shall be considered without any delay considering the fact that the petitioner has already remained under incarceration for more than 19 years and 6 months.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 14, 2016 sl