Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a life convict undergoing sentence in Aurangabad Central Prison, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by Respondent No.1 (Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad) rejecting his application for furlough. The petitioner had been convicted for life and his appeal against conviction was pending before the High Court. The Divisional Commissioner rejected the furlough application on the ground that the petitioner's appeal was pending and that there was a possibility of the petitioner absconding. The petitioner contended that furlough is a right under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and cannot be denied merely because an appeal is pending. The State argued that furlough is a privilege and not a right, and that the authorities have discretion to reject it. The court analyzed the relevant rules and previous judgments, holding that furlough is a right of a prisoner and not a privilege. The court observed that the pendency of an appeal is not a valid ground to deny furlough under the Rules. The court also noted that the order did not record any exceptional circumstances justifying denial. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed Respondent No.1 to reconsider the petitioner's furlough application afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by the pendency of the appeal. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right of Prisoner - Furlough is a right of a prisoner, not a privilege, and must be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying denial - The court held that the order rejecting furlough solely on the ground of pendency of appeal is unsustainable as furlough is governed by the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which do not provide for such a ground - The court directed the authorities to reconsider the application afresh (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 21.02.2017 rejecting the petitioner's application for furlough is legal and valid, and whether a life convict is entitled to furlough as a matter of right.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.02.2017 passed by Respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for furlough afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by the pendency of the appeal.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a prisoner
- not a privilege
- Furlough cannot be denied solely on ground of pendency of appeal
- Denial of furlough must be based on exceptional circumstances and not on subjective satisfaction
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
