Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal writ petitions filed by Dastgir Gafur Shaha, a convict, and his father Gafur Sandu Shaha, seeking release on furlough. The petitioner, Dastgir Gafur Shaha, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. He applied for furlough, but his application was rejected by the prison authorities relying on Sub Rule 4 of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The petitioner contended that furlough is a right under Rule 17 of the said Rules and that he had completed more than 6 years of imprisonment without any previous furlough or parole. He argued that his family members were ready to stand as surety and that the police report did not indicate any threat to public safety. The father filed a separate petition on behalf of the convict. The court heard both petitions together. The court analyzed the relevant rules and held that furlough is a right of a convict under Rule 17, and it can be denied only for exceptional reasons. The rejection based on Rule 4(4) was found unsustainable as the rule does not bar furlough during the pendency of an appeal. The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of 21 days, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond and surety, and reporting to the police station daily. The court also directed that the petitioner be released within one week from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right of Convict - Rule 17 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court held that furlough is a right of a convict and can be denied only for exceptional reasons. The rejection of furlough on the ground of pendency of appeal was not sustainable as the rules do not bar furlough during appeal. The court directed the authorities to release the petitioner on furlough subject to conditions. (Paras 3-6) B) Prisons Law - Furlough - Rejection - Rule 4(4) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court found that the rejection of furlough relying on Rule 4(4) was unsustainable as the rule does not empower rejection on the ground of pendency of appeal. The court emphasized that furlough is a right and not a concession. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a convict is entitled to furlough leave as a matter of right under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and whether the rejection of furlough on the ground of pendency of appeal is sustainable
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of 21 days, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, and reporting to the police station daily. The petitioner to be released within one week.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a convict under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
- Rule 17
- rejection of furlough must be based on valid reasons
- pendency of appeal is not a ground to deny furlough
- Rule 4(4) cannot be used to deny furlough arbitrarily
