1984 riots case: Ex Cong councillor seeks furlough

Former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, convicted in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, seeks a three-week furlough to reconnect with family.

Former Congress councillor Balwan Khokhar, convicted and sentenced to life in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, has moved Delhi High Court seeking release on three weeks’ furlough to reconnect with his family.

Five Sikh individuals were killed and a gurdwara in Ghaziabad’s Raj Nagar was torched in 1984. (HT Archive)

Khokhar, along with four others, was convicted in 2013 by a trial court for murder and rioting. However, former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar was acquitted in the same case. The case dates back to November 1, 1984 when five Sikh individuals were killed and a gurdwara in Ghaziabad’s Raj Nagar was torched following the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

In December 2018, Delhi High Court upheld Khokhar’s conviction and sentence, while overturning the acquittal of Kumar. Khokhar’s appeal against the high court’s verdict is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Though the matter was listed before a bench of justice Ravinder Dudeja on Monday, the same was adjourned for October 28, as the judge was on leave.

Khokhar has moved the high court challenging the September 4 order of the director general of prisons, Tihar Jail, which had rejected his furlough request on the grounds that his release could pose a threat to public peace and order.

In his plea filed through advocate Uday Chauhan, Khokhar has asserted that the DG prisons failed to take into account the fact that he has been granted furlough on multiple occasions in the past, during which no adverse incidents were reported against him.

“The petitioner was granted 10 interim bail, two parole, seven furlough during his incarceration and he had never misused the liberty granted by this court or the liberty of furlough granted by the competent authority of the state. The respondent has erred in terming the reason as generic in nature, thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefit,” the petition stated.