Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two criminal writ petitions filed by prisoners challenging orders rejecting their applications for furlough. The petitioners, Ravasaheb Damu Ghule and Nilesh Hiru Gavit, had applied for furlough under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The Competent Authority rejected their applications not on merits but because the petitioners declined to accept a condition that they stay outside their respective districts (Nashik for Ghule, Palghar for Gavit). The State argued that Rule 17 of the Rules provides that nothing in the Rules confers a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough, and that the Rules do not prohibit imposition of such conditions. The court considered the submissions and relied on a Division Bench decision in Sharad Keshav Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, which held that Rule 17 cannot deprive a prisoner of the substantial right to be released on furlough if the requirements of the Rules are satisfied. The court found that the condition imposed by the Competent Authority to stay outside a particular district is not contemplated by the Rules and is invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the petitioners' applications for furlough on merits without imposing such conditions. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applications.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right to Furlough - Rule 17 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court held that Rule 17 cannot deprive a prisoner of the substantial right to be released on furlough if the requirements of the rules are satisfied. The Competent Authority cannot impose a condition that the prisoner must stay outside a particular district as a precondition for grant of furlough. (Paras 1-5) B) Prisons Law - Furlough - Imposition of Condition - Rule 4 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court held that the condition imposed by the Competent Authority requiring the prisoner to stay outside a particular district is not contemplated by the Rules and is invalid. The orders rejecting furlough on the ground that the prisoner declined such condition were set aside. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority can impose a condition on a prisoner to stay outside a particular district as a precondition for grant of furlough under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959
Final Decision
The court allowed both writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders dated 6th July 2018 and 23rd July 2018, and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the petitioners' applications for grant of furlough on merits without imposing the condition of staying outside a particular district. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applications.
Law Points
- Furlough is a substantial right of a prisoner if conditions of rules are satisfied
- Rule 17 cannot deprive that right
- Competent Authority cannot impose condition to stay outside a particular district as a precondition for grant of furlough
