Violating furlough norms can’t be grounds to deny leave: HC on petitions by 2 prisoners

Adopting a liberal stand, the Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday held that prisoners cannot be denied furlough only on the grounds that they failed to report back

Adopting a liberal stand, the Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday held that prisoners cannot be denied furlough only on the grounds that they failed to report back to the prison on time in the past.

HT Image

The division bench of justice TV Nalawade and justice SM Gavhane said the case of each prisoner needs to be considered separately on its own merits, and that the prison authorities should give proper justification for refusing furlough to inmates.

The bench clarified that if sufficient time has passed after the lapse on the part of the prisoner in returning to the prison, it becomes the duty of the prison authorities to consider applications of such inmates on the basis of his/her conduct in the prison during the intervening period.

The court was hearing separate petitions filed by two prisoners – Satish Shinde and Nagnath Sontakke – both lodged at the Central Prison in Aurangabad.

Shinde had moved the court after the deputy inspector general of prisons, Aurangabad, rejected his furlough leave on June 27 on grounds that there was “adverse police report” against him. Shinde had failed to report back to the prison twice after being released on furlough in 2006 and 2012, after which he had to be arrested and brought back to the prison. Shinde was brought back to the prison 802 days after his stipulated time in 2006, while in 2012, he was late by 580 days.

Sontakke’s plea was rejected on August 14, because he was late to return to the prison by 170 days after being out on furlough in 2012.

An assistant public prosecutor opposed the prisoners’ petitions, contending that Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prison Rules, 1979, prohibits granting of furlough to prisoners who fail to report back on time after being released on furlough. He maintained that the clause was mandatory.

The bench, however, refused to accept the state’s argument. It accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the two convicts that the purpose of the leave is to enable a prisoner to maintain ties with the society and spend some time with his family.

The judge accepted their argument that if a live convict, who is required to serve 26 years of imprisonment, is granted furlough in the fourth year of his prison term, he will not be allowed furlough for the remaining 22 years of his term, which will be contrary to the purpose of the furlough scheme. The bench said therefore, that the case of every prisoner was required to be considered on its own merits when it comes to the granting of furlough.