Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Archana Singh, wife of convict Virendra Thakur, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of her husband's furlough application. The convict was arrested in August 2013 and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Sessions Court, Mumbai, on 27 December 2019, receiving a life sentence. He had undergone 7 years and 7 months of imprisonment, with remission totaling over 8 years. The convict applied for furlough, but the Deputy Inspector General (Prison) rejected it on 23 June 2020, citing a threat to the lives of witnesses. An appeal to the Inspector General of Prisons was dismissed on 2 November 2020. The petitioner argued that the threat apprehension was vague and general, and that relatives were willing to stand surety and ensure the convict's compliance with conditions. The State opposed the petition, relying on the reasons in the impugned orders. The court considered the submissions and examined the records. It noted that the convict had completed the requisite period of imprisonment and was eligible for furlough under the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The court found that the rejection was based on vague and general observations without specific material to substantiate the threat. The court held that furlough is a right of a prisoner, not a privilege, and that the authorities must consider applications objectively. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to release the convict on furlough for a period of 21 days, subject to conditions including furnishing a solvent surety, reporting daily to the police station, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission. The court also directed the convict to surrender on the expiry of the furlough period.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right of Prisoner - Furlough is a right of a prisoner, not a privilege, subject to good conduct and eligibility under the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court held that the rejection of furlough on vague and general grounds of threat to witnesses is unsustainable, and the convict is entitled to furlough with conditions to ensure security (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough application of a life convict on the ground of threat to witnesses is sustainable when the apprehension is vague and general
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23 June 2020 and 2 November 2020 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the convict Virendra Thakur on furlough for a period of 21 days, subject to furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 25,000/-, reporting daily to the police station, not leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and surrendering on expiry of the furlough period.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a prisoner
- not a privilege
- subject to good conduct and eligibility under the Rules
- Vague and general apprehension of threat to witnesses cannot be a valid ground to reject furlough
- Conditions can be imposed to address security concerns
