Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raghuvir Sharma, a convict serving sentence for an offence under Section 377 IPC at Central Jail Colvale, Goa, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 20/02/2017 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Panaji, Goa. The order granted him furlough for 14 days but imposed a condition requiring him to execute a personal bond in Form II for ₹1,00,000/- and produce one surety in the like amount. The petitioner had applied for furlough on 14/10/2016, which was initially granted on 05/01/2017 with similar conditions. He had not availed any parole or furlough earlier and had been in continuous confinement for three years with good conduct and no adverse complaints. The petitioner contended that the harsh conditions defeated the purpose of furlough as he was unable to comply due to his financial incapacity. The Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the amount could be reduced. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the condition was harsh and unreasonable, and reduced the personal bond to ₹10,000/- without any surety, directing the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough for 14 days on execution of the bond. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Prisoners - Furlough - Conditions for Release - Bombay High Court held that the condition of executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount for release on furlough was harsh and unreasonable, as the petitioner had been in continuous confinement for three years, had good conduct, and had not availed any parole or furlough earlier. The court reduced the bond amount to ₹10,000/- without surety to enable the petitioner to avail the furlough. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition of executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount for release on furlough was harsh and unreasonable, thereby defeating the purpose of furlough.
Final Decision
The court reduced the personal bond amount from ₹1,00,000/- to ₹10,000/- without any surety, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough for 14 days on execution of the bond. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Furlough conditions must be reasonable and not defeat the purpose of release
- Personal bond amount should be proportionate to the convict's capacity
- Courts can interfere with harsh conditions imposed by prison authorities
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 77
Criminal Writ Petition No.63 of 2017
F. M. Reis, Nutan D. Sardessai
T. George John for petitioner, S. R. Rivankar (Public Prosecutor) for respondents
State of Goa, Through The IG Prison, Panaji, Goa; PP High Court, Panaji, Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the condition of personal bond and surety imposed for release on furlough.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reduction of the bond amount and removal of surety condition to enable him to avail furlough.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was unable to comply with the condition of executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount for release on furlough, which he considered harsh and unreasonable.
Previous Decisions
The Inspector General of Prisons granted furlough for 14 days by order dated 20/02/2017 with the condition of personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- and one surety in the like amount.
Issues
Whether the condition of executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount for release on furlough was harsh and unreasonable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he had been in continuous confinement for three years, had good conduct, and had not availed any parole or furlough earlier, and the harsh conditions defeated the purpose of furlough.
Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the amount could be reduced so that the petitioner could comply with the conditions.
Ratio Decidendi
The condition of executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount for release on furlough was harsh and unreasonable, as it defeated the purpose of furlough. The court has the power to interfere with such conditions to ensure that the benefit of furlough is not rendered illusory.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20/02/2017 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Panaji, Goa to the extent of imposition of the condition of execution of a Personal Bond in Form II for ₹1,00,000/- and produce one surety in the like amount giving cash or otherwise, for releasing the petitioner on furlough for a period of 14 days.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the amount fixed by the respondent no.1 could be reduced so that the petitioner could comply with the conditions of furlough and seek his release appropriately.
In the circumstances, we find that the condition imposed by the respondent no.1 is harsh and unreasonable. We accordingly reduce the personal bond to ₹10,000/- without any surety.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for furlough on 14/10/2016. The Inspector General of Prisons granted furlough for 14 days by order dated 05/01/2017 with conditions. The petitioner did not avail it. Subsequently, by order dated 20/02/2017, the same conditions were imposed. The petitioner then filed Criminal Writ Petition No.63 of 2017 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the condition.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 377
