Case Note & Summary
The matter was a criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by a life convict seeking quashing of order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Inspector General Prison (East Region), Nagpur, which rejected his furlough leave application. The petitioner had been convicted in Sessions Case No.134/2014 under Sections 302, 307 and 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was undergoing life imprisonment. He had undergone 3 years, 11 months and 10 days till 11.11.2024, making him eligible for furlough under Rule 3(C) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. He applied for furlough on 05.11.2024. The rejection cited two grounds: adverse police report and bar under Rule 4(2)(e)(l) of Notification dated 02.12.2024 because the petitioner was accused in Crime No.14/2021 under NDPS Act, Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act, pending as ST No.34/2021. Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the order was passed without application of mind; he was not convicted in the NDPS case and the Notification bar did not apply; the adverse police report was factually incorrect because after obtaining bail in 2021 no offence was registered against him and no complaints existed. The respondents contended that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and the Notification barred offenders like him; they relied on Rule 4(2)(e)(l) and the police report dated 01.01.2025. The Court examined the Notification dated 02.12.2024, particularly Rule 4(2)(e)(l), which bars prisoners convicted under NDPS Act, TADA, MCOCA, POTA, POCSO, gang rape, human trafficking, etc. Rule 2(f) defined 'prisoner' as convicted prisoner, and Rule 1(3) stated the rules apply to convicted prisoners. Therefore, the notification applies only to convicts, not undertrials. Since the petitioner's NDPS case was still pending, the bar did not apply. The respondent had committed a gross error. Regarding adverse police report, the Court considered the report dated 01.01.2025 from Additional Superintendent of Police, Akola, which stated there would be danger to deceased's family and possibility of committing another offence because petitioner had no property and was unmarried. The Court found the apprehension had no basis; no complaint had been made by the informant about threats. It relied on Sanjay Kisan Kadse v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2004) 1 Mah LJ 789, which held that adverse police reports must be substantiated with valid reasons and cannot be formal expression; and on order dated 10.07.2024 in Criminal Writ Petition No.828/2024, where the Court deprecated unfounded remarks denying benefits to a convict, noting that prisoners retain rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The Court held the rejection was vitiated by non-application of mind. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 31.01.2025, and directed the release of petitioner on furlough leave for 21 days on conditions as authorities deem fit. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Furlough and Parole - Applicability of Notification dated 02.12.2024 to Undertrial Prisoners - Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, Rule 3(C) and Rule 4(2)(e)(l); Notification dated 02.12.2024 - The petitioner, a life convict, was also an accused in NDPS case ST No.34/2021 pending trial. The respondent rejected furlough by applying Rule 4(2)(e)(l) of the Notification, which bars prisoners convicted under NDPS Act and other specified offences. The Court held that the Notification applies only to convicted prisoners as defined in Rule 2(f) and Rule 1(3), and since the petitioner was not convicted in the NDPS case, the bar did not apply. Held that respondent No.1 erred in applying the Notification to an undertrial (Paras 6-7). B) Criminal Law - Furlough and Parole - Adverse Police Report and Non-application of Mind - Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, Rule 4 - The rejection was also based on an adverse police report expressing apprehension of danger to deceased's family and possibility of committing another offence due to no property or marriage. The Court, relying on Sanjay Kisan Kadse and Criminal Writ Petition No.828/2024, held that adverse police reports must be substantiated by valid reasons and cannot rest on mere apprehension; no complaint had been made by the informant about threats. Held that the rejection order reflected non-application of mind and was unsustainable (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough leave based on Notification dated 02.12.2024 Rule 4(2)(e)(l) is valid when petitioner is an accused in pending NDPS case and not convicted; whether adverse police report based on vague apprehension can justify denial of furlough
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal writ petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1, and directed release of the petitioner on furlough leave for a period of 21 days as prayed for on such conditions as the authorities concerned deem fit. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Furlough eligibility under Rule 3(C) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959 requires completion of three years
- Rule 4(2)(e)(l) of Notification dated 02.12.2024 bars only convicted prisoners under NDPS
- MCOCA
- etc.
- adverse police report must be substantiated with valid reasons
- not mere apprehension
- prisoner retains rights under Article 21 despite incarceration
- rejection order must reflect application of mind
