E-Paper
Supreme Court stays release of Narayan Sai on furlough
In December 2020, Sai was granted a two-week furlough to visit his ailing mother in Ahmedabad. Six months later, he appealed for furlough again and was granted one by the Gujarat High Court on June 24. However, the High Court by a separate order stayed his release. This order was to expire on Friday.
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the release of self-styled godman Asaram Bapu’s son Narayan Sai on a two-week furlough granted by the Gujarat High Court on June 24. The furlough was to take effect from Friday as the High Court had stayed till then the operation of its own order.
The Court while issuing notice on an appeal filed by the Gujarat government challenging the HC order, also agreed to examine whether the release of convicts under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959 (applicable to Gujarat) and the provision of furlough for life convicts “every year” referred to a calendar year or the duration of a year after the last release on furlough.
The bench of Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah said, “Pending further orders, there shall be a stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 24 June 2021, directing the release of the respondent on furlough for a period of two weeks.”
Sai was convicted in a rape case by a Surat court in April 2019 on a complaint by two women that they were raped between 2002 and 2005 at a Surat ashram run by him and his father Asaram Bapu. The trial court sentenced him to life under Section 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (assault), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
In December 2020, Sai was granted a two-week furlough to visit his ailing mother in Ahmedabad. Six months later, he appealed for furlough again and was granted one by the Gujarat High Court on June 24. However, the High Court by a separate order stayed his release. This order was to expire on Friday.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Gujarat pointed out that the Furlough Rules of 1959 clearly state that under Rule 17, no prisoner has a legal right for furlough. He read out a 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court which affirmed the view that furlough is not an absolute right and the purpose behind it is to periodically allow the convict to have family association and avoid the ill-effects of continuous stay in jail.
The bench said, “What is prevailing in our mind is whether the expression “every year” as occurring in the proviso to Rule 3(2) of the 1959 Rules refers to once every calendar year or that at least a year should elapse since it was last availed. We will examine this question.”
According to the proviso to Rule 3(2), a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough “every year”, after he completes seven years actual imprisonment. Sai was arrested in December 2013 from Haryana in the present case. He had spent nearly seven-and-a-half years in prison and was entitled for furlough.
Mehta further stated that the Rules also provide denial of furlough if the Commissioner of Police feels that the release of the convict will not serve the interests of public peace and tranquility or the conduct of prisoner, in the opinion of the Jail Superintendent, is not satisfactory.
The state submitted that Sai was convicted of an offence of rape and the Director General of Police had issued an order on May 8, 2021 detailing the circumstances impinging on public peace and tranquility if he was released. Solicitor General said that Sai commanded a huge number of followers inside the state. While in custody, he tried to intimidate and bribe the investigating officer and three crucial witnesses in the case were killed, Mehta submitted.
When the bench asked why the state did not oppose the first grant of furlough, Mehta informed that the state did not adopt an adversarial approach and treated his request for meeting mother on a purely humanitarian consideration. Opposing his subsequent furlough request, Mehta argued, “He is claiming furlough as a matter of right that will accrue to him every year. This cannot be accepted”
Sai was represented in Court by advocate Sanjiv Punalekar who accepted notice and agreed to respond within a week. The bench posted the matter for hearing next on August 26.
