Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manik Bapurao Shejal, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was undergoing life imprisonment at Open Prison, Morshi. He applied for furlough to the Superintendent (respondent no. 2), who forwarded it to the Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (respondent no. 1). The respondent no. 1 rejected the application by order dated 5-11-2016 on the sole ground that the petitioner's surety was not ready to execute the surety bond. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanical and without application of mind, as Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, while requiring a surety, contains a proviso that allows the sanctioning authority to dispense with the requirement of a bond for prisoners confined in Open Prisons as defined in the Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules, 1971. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner failed to provide a surety willing to execute the bond. The court heard both sides and considered the Full Bench decision in Dipak Sudhakar Wakalekar v. State of Maharashtra (2011 Cri LJ 3263). The court found that the respondent no. 1 had not applied its mind to the proviso to Rule 6, which specifically empowers the sanctioning authority to dispense with the surety bond requirement for prisoners in Open Prisons. The impugned order was therefore quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted back to respondent no. 1 to decide the petitioner's furlough application afresh in accordance with law, after considering the proviso to Rule 6.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Surety Requirement - Rule 6 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The impugned order rejecting furlough application solely on ground that surety was not ready to execute bond was quashed as the authority failed to consider the proviso to Rule 6 which empowers dispensation of bond for prisoners in Open Prisons - Held that the order suffered from non-application of mind and was liable to be set aside (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough application solely on the ground that surety is not ready to execute surety bond is valid in light of the proviso to Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which allows the sanctioning authority to dispense with the requirement of bond for prisoners confined in Open Prisons.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 5-11-2016 passed by respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent no. 1 to decide the petitioner's furlough application afresh in accordance with law, after considering the proviso to Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
Law Points
- Furlough grant
- Open Prison
- Surety requirement
- Dispensation of bond
- Non-application of mind
