Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Sahebrao Kadam, a convict lodged in Central Prison, Aurangabad, filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the order dated 20th May 2017 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, rejecting his application for furlough. The petitioner had applied for furlough under the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The respondent authorities rejected the application on two grounds: first, an adverse police report indicating that the petitioner might commit an offence if released, and second, that the petitioner's appeal against his conviction was pending before the High Court. The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary and that furlough is a right, not a privilege, and that the pendency of an appeal cannot be a ground for denial. The State argued that the adverse police report and the pending appeal justified the rejection. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that furlough is a right of a prisoner subject to good conduct, and the authority must consider the statutory criteria under the Rules. The court observed that the impugned order did not consider the petitioner's conduct in prison or the purpose of furlough, and merely relied on the adverse police report. The court also held that the pendency of an appeal does not disentitle a prisoner to furlough. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's furlough application afresh, taking into account the observations made in the judgment, and to pass a reasoned order within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough - Right of Prisoner - Furlough is a right of a prisoner, not a privilege, subject to good conduct - The authority must consider the statutory criteria under the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and not solely rely on an adverse police report - Held that the impugned order rejecting furlough was unsustainable as it did not consider the petitioner's conduct in prison and the purpose of furlough (Paras 1-10). B) Prisons Law - Furlough - Pending Appeal - Pendency of an appeal against conviction does not disentitle a prisoner to be released on furlough - The right to furlough is independent of the appellate remedy - Held that the rejection on the ground of pending appeal was erroneous (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's furlough application by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons on the ground of adverse police report and pendency of appeal is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 20th May 2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's furlough application afresh, taking into account the observations made in the judgment, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a prisoner
- not a privilege
- subject to good conduct
- Rejection of furlough cannot be based solely on adverse police report without considering statutory criteria
- Pending appeal does not disentitle a prisoner to furlough
- The authority must consider the purpose of furlough and the prisoner's conduct in prison.
