Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kalyan Kisan Bhondve @ Bhosale, a prisoner, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of his request for furlough leave by the competent authority. The sole ground for rejection was that the petitioner had overstayed his leave on an earlier occasion by 344 days and was taken into custody only after being arrested by the police. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the petitioner had already been punished for that overstay under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the same default could not be used again to refuse furlough, as it would amount to double punishment. Reliance was placed on two Single Judge decisions of the same court reported in 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 349 (Santosh Bhagwandin Bachharaj v. Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati) and 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 491 (Sarfuddin Aminuddin v. State of Maharashtra). The court, however, disagreed with those decisions, holding that they were based on an erroneous assumption that refusal of furlough amounts to double punishment. The court noted that the grant or refusal of furlough is governed by Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which expressly provides that a prisoner's default in surrendering at the appropriate time on parole or furlough leave can be a ground to refuse furlough. Since the rule itself contemplates such a circumstance as a condition for refusal, it cannot be considered a punishment. The principle of double jeopardy has no application to administrative decisions regarding furlough. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the rejection of furlough leave.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough Leave - Refusal on Ground of Prior Overstay - Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The petitioner, a prisoner, sought furlough leave which was rejected because he had overstayed leave by 344 days on an earlier occasion. The court held that Rule 4(10) expressly permits refusal of furlough on the ground of prior default in surrendering on parole or furlough. Such refusal is not a punishment but a condition for grant of leave, and therefore does not attract the rule against double jeopardy. The earlier decisions of the same court taking a contrary view were held to be erroneous. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether refusal of furlough leave on the ground that the prisoner had overstayed leave on an earlier occasion amounts to double punishment and violates the principle of double jeopardy.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The rejection of furlough leave is upheld.
Law Points
- Furlough leave refusal based on prior overstay is not double punishment
- Rule 4(10) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
- Double jeopardy principle not applicable to administrative refusal of furlough
