Delhi HC Grants 21-Day Furlough to 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Convict Balwan Khokhar
Delhi HC Grants Furlough to 1984 Riots Convict Balwan Khokhar

The Delhi High Court has approved a temporary 21-day release on furlough for Balwan Khokhar, a man convicted and serving a life term for his involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The court underscored that such temporary releases are vital for the rehabilitative goals of the justice system.

Court's Emphasis on Rehabilitation Over Mechanical Denial

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, presiding over the case, sanctioned the furlough while imposing a bail bond requirement of Rs. 20,000 along with one surety of an identical amount. In the ruling, the judge made a significant observation about the philosophy behind furlough.

The court acknowledged the grave nature of Khokhar's crime but stated that "to deny furlough to him would amount to a mechanical application of the Rules, defeating the very objective underlying furlough jurisprudence." The bench emphasized that temporary release plays a crucial part in upholding the larger aim of reintegrating individuals into society.

Conditions of Release and Past Conduct

The court has set specific conditions for Khokhar's furlough. He must not leave the jurisdiction of the Delhi Cantt police station without providing prior intimation. Additionally, he is required to mark his presence every Tuesday at 10 am before the concerned authorities.

The bench reviewed Khokhar's jail records, which showed his conduct as ‘satisfactory’. He has been working as a ‘sahayak’ (helper) at the prison's Outpatient Department (OPD). Records also indicated that he had been released on interim bail, parole, and furlough on several previous occasions and had surrendered on time each instance without misusing the liberty granted to him.

Background of the Case and Custody Period

Balwan Khokhar has been serving a life sentence since his conviction in 2013 in connection with the deadly 1984 anti-Sikh riots. According to the court's order, he has spent approximately 11 years and 10 months in custody so far. The decision highlights the judiciary's ongoing balance between the severity of the offence and the principles of reformation within the penal system.