Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal writ petitions filed by convicts Satish Shankarrao Shinde and Nagnath Bapurao Sontakke, challenging the rejection of their furlough applications by the prison authorities. The petitioners were convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code and were serving sentences in Central Prison, Aurangabad. The first petitioner, Satish Shinde, had his furlough application rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons on 27 June 2019 on the grounds of an adverse police report and his past conduct of overstaying furlough by 802 days in 2006 and 580 days in 2012, requiring police arrest on both occasions. The second petitioner, Nagnath Sontakke, faced similar rejection. The court considered the legal issue of whether furlough is a right or privilege and whether past overstay alone can justify rejection. The petitioners argued that they had reformed and had no misconduct during incarceration. The State opposed, citing the risk of absconding. The court held that furlough is a right of a prisoner aimed at reformation and maintaining family ties, and that the authorities must consider the purpose of furlough and not reject it solely on past overstay without considering subsequent good conduct and the period of sentence already undergone. The court found that the rejection orders did not consider the reformative aspect and were thus unsustainable. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the applications and grant furlough subject to appropriate conditions, including furnishing surety and reporting to the police. The petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Furlough - Right of Prisoner - Furlough is a right of a prisoner and not a privilege; it is granted to maintain family and social ties and for reformation. The authorities must consider the purpose of furlough and not reject it solely on past overstay without considering subsequent good conduct and period of incarceration. (Paras 1-3) B) Prison Law - Maharashtra Prison Rules, 1979 - Rules 4(4), 4(10), 4(20) - Rejection of Furlough - The rejection of furlough on the ground of past overstay of 802 days and 580 days is not sustainable when the prisoner has already undergone a long period of sentence and there is no report of any misconduct during the period of incarceration. The authorities must apply their mind to the reformative aspect. (Paras 2-3) C) Prison Law - Furlough - Adverse Police Report - An adverse police report without any specific instance of misconduct or threat to law and order cannot be the sole basis for rejection of furlough. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the application and grant furlough subject to conditions. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough application solely on the ground of past overstay and adverse police report is sustainable in law, and whether the authorities have considered the reformative aspect and subsequent conduct of the prisoner.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the authorities to reconsider the furlough applications and grant furlough subject to appropriate conditions.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a prisoner
- not a privilege
- past overstay alone cannot be a ground for rejection
- subsequent good conduct and long period of incarceration must be considered
- Rules 4(4)
- 4(10)
- 4(20) of Maharashtra Prison Rules
- 1979
- reformative theory of punishment.
