Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Murlidhar Ramchandra Bhalerao, a convict lodged in Central Prison, Nagpur, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the rejection of his furlough application by an order dated 08.12.2010. The petitioner sought release on furlough. The rejection order cited that the proposed surety was not willing to stand as surety and that on a previous occasion when the petitioner was released, he did not report back in time and absconded, requiring police arrest and return to prison. The petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection was solely under Rule 6 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, based on surety unwillingness, and that the surety was now willing. He also contended that a convict has a right to furlough, relying on Santosh v. Superintendent, Central Prison (2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 349). The court perused the order and found that it clearly stated both grounds: previous absconding and surety unwillingness. The court held that even if the surety is willing, the fact of absconding remains a valid ground for rejection. The court distinguished Santosh, noting that in that case the prisoner had surrendered late and was punished, whereas here the petitioner absconded and was arrested by police. The court concluded that the rejection was justified and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Prisoners - Furlough - Rejection of Application - Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, Rule 6 - The petitioner's furlough application was rejected on grounds that he had previously absconded and the proposed surety was unwilling. The court held that even if the surety is willing, the fact of previous absconding remains a valid ground for rejection. The order must be read as a whole, not in isolation. (Paras 2-4) B) Prisons and Prisoners - Furlough - Right to Furlough - Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959 - The court distinguished the case of Santosh v. Superintendent, Central Prison, noting that the petitioner had not been punished for late surrender and had absconded, requiring police arrest. Therefore, the right to furlough is not absolute and can be denied on grounds of previous absconding. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough application solely on the ground of surety's unwillingness is valid when the petitioner claims surety is willing, and whether a convict has an absolute right to furlough.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Furlough is not an absolute right
- previous absconding is a valid ground for rejection
- order must be read as a whole
