The Delhi High Court clarified the interpretation of prison rules regarding simultaneous parole or furlough for co-convicts. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their furlough applications, which was based solely on the fact that their co-convicts had already been released. Authorities relied on the rule stating that such release is “ordinarily not permissible.” The Court held that the term “ordinarily” does not create an absolute prohibition but allows for exceptions in appropriate cases. It emphasised that authorities must exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis and cannot reject applications mechanically. While public safety concerns such as witness intimidation or coordinated criminal activity are valid, they must be balanced against the prisoner’s right to dignity and rehabilitation under Article 21. The Court reaffirmed that parole and furlough are reformative tools aimed at reintegration and maintaining social ties. It directed that simultaneous release may be allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as family emergencies, but only after stricter scrutiny of risks. The petition was dismissed, but the Court clarified that there is no blanket ban, and decisions must be reasoned, fair, and proportionate.