Bombay HC suggests shifting prisoners to open prison

The suggestion was prompted after the court was informed that while the prison had a capacity of 500 inmates, it currently has only 41 inmates as the others had taken benefit of emergency parole/ furlough and were released as per the guidelines of the high-power committee (HPC).

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC), while granting emergency furlough to eight of the nine inmates of Paithan open prison, suggested getting prisoners from congested jails transferred to the open prison to take care of the 220 cattle and 325 acres of sugarcane plantation under the prison administration. The suggestion was prompted after the court was informed that while the prison had a capacity of 500 inmates, it currently has only 41 inmates as the others had taken benefit of emergency parole/ furlough and were released as per the guidelines of the high-power committee (HPC).

HT Image

The division bench of justice Ravindra Ghuge and justice BU Debadwar, while hearing writ petitions filed by nine inmates lodged at Paithan Open Prison, was informed by advocate PP More that the petitioners had been in prison for five to 10 years and that with the exception of one, the remaining eight were never released on parole or furlough. In view of this, More added, that the inmates were aggrieved by the refusal of the jail superintendent to grant them emergency parole/furlough recommended by the HPC.

On May 8, 2020 in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the state government had issued a notification permitting release of prisoners temporarily to curb the spread of the virus and decongest jails. The state had, however, left it to the HPC to work out the modalities of the implementation of the notification. The HPC had laid down conditions for release of prisoners convicted and sentenced under the Indian Penal Code but refused parole and furlough to those found guilty under special Acts.

More also said it would be discrimination if the petitioners were not allowed emergency parole/furlough, and hence sought directions to jail authorities to consider their application.

The chief public prosecutor then informed the court that as many prisoners had taken benefit of emergency parole/furlough, the population of Paithan open prison was only 41 as opposed to its capacity of 500. He submitted that as there was agricultural land and cattle of the prison that needed to be taken care of, he would speak to the additional chief secretary of home department to clarify when and how the released prisoners were to be recalled as at least one-third of the prison’s strength would have to be maintained.

After hearing the submissions, the court held the inmates could not be discriminated against just because the prison had to maintain a certain population, and suggested that the state get prisoners who were eligible to be placed in open prisons to be transferred from other congested jails to make up the shortfall.

The court then directed the superintendent of Paithan jail to consider the applications of the eight petitioners but rejected the petition of one prisoner who was released on parole once.