Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jalindarsingh Ajitsingh Kalyani, a prisoner at Kolhapur Central Prison, filed a Criminal Writ Petition through jail challenging the rejection of his furlough application. He had been convicted under Sections 302, 392, and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). His furlough application dated 17 March 2016 was rejected on 18 July 2016, and his appeal was dismissed on 4 January 2017. The rejection was based on two grounds: first, Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which bars furlough for prisoners convicted of offences under Sections 392 to 402 IPC; second, his past conduct during an earlier furlough in 2006, when he overstayed by 144 days and was involved in four other cases of robbery or dacoity. The petitioner's counsel argued that since he had already served the sentence for the offences under Sections 392 and 395, Rule 4(2) should not apply. The court rejected this argument, holding that Rule 4(2) applies to the fact of conviction, not the duration of sentence served. The court also noted that the petitioner's history of overstay and criminal activity during furlough justified the apprehension that he might abscond or commit further offences. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, declining to interfere with the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Statutory Bar - Rule 4(2) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The petitioner, convicted under Sections 392 and 395 IPC, sought furlough. The court held that Rule 4(2) prohibits furlough for prisoners convicted of offences under Sections 392 to 402 IPC, irrespective of whether the sentence for those offences has been served. The bar applies as long as the conviction stands. (Paras 2-3) B) Prisons Law - Furlough - Past Misconduct - The petitioner had previously been released on furlough in 2006 but overstayed by 144 days and was involved in four other robbery/dacoity cases during that period. The court held that such history justifies apprehension of abscondence and further criminal activity, and is a valid ground for rejecting furlough. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a prisoner convicted under Sections 392 and 395 IPC can be granted furlough despite Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and whether the past history of overstay and criminal activity during earlier furlough justifies rejection.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, upholding the rejection of furlough.
Law Points
- Furlough cannot be granted to prisoners convicted under Sections 392 to 402 IPC
- even if sentence for those offences is already served
- Rule 4(2) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
- Past history of overstay and involvement in criminal activities during furlough is valid ground for rejection
