Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Hiralal Bhosale, was convicted under Sections 376(2), 366, 342, 506(II) read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment on 21 October 2010. He applied for furlough leave under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The Competent Authority rejected his application on 16 April 2012 solely on the ground that he was convicted under Section 366 IPC. The appellate authority, Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, also rejected his appeal on 30 October 2012 without a reasoned order. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that furlough is a right and cannot be denied merely based on the nature of the offence. The High Court held that furlough is a right, not a privilege, and the Rules do not permit rejection solely on the ground of the nature of the offence. The court set aside both orders and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the application afresh, considering all relevant factors such as the petitioner's conduct, period of sentence undergone, and risk of absconding. The court also directed the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order if the matter comes before it again.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right vs Privilege - Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - Furlough is a right of a prisoner and not a privilege, and can be denied only on grounds specified in the Rules, such as likelihood of committing offence or absconding. The nature of the offence alone cannot be the sole ground for rejection. (Paras 8-10) B) Prisons Law - Furlough - Rejection on Ground of Nature of Offence - Section 366, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The competent authority rejected furlough solely because the petitioner was convicted under Section 366 IPC. The High Court held that this ground is not a valid ground under the Rules, and the authority must consider other factors such as conduct, period undergone, and risk of absconding. (Paras 8-10) C) Prisons Law - Furlough - Appellate Authority's Duty - Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The appellate authority must pass a reasoned order considering the prisoner's submissions and the Rules. In this case, the appellate authority's order was cryptic and did not address the petitioner's contentions, hence set aside. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough leave to a life convict convicted under Section 366 IPC is valid when the only ground for rejection is the nature of the offence?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders dated 16 April 2012 and 30 October 2012, and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the petitioner's furlough application afresh in accordance with law, considering all relevant factors and without being influenced by the earlier rejection.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right
- not a privilege
- Furlough cannot be denied solely on nature of offence
- Competent authority must consider all relevant factors
- Appellate authority must pass reasoned order
