Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal writ petition filed by a convict serving sentence in Central Prison, Nashik, challenging the orders rejecting his application for furlough. The petitioner, a convict, sought furlough to attend to his mother's illness, submitting a medical certificate that was ten months old. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, rejected the application on 8 March 2017, citing two grounds: the medical certificate was outdated and no recent treatment records were provided; and the petitioner's appeal against his conviction was pending before the High Court, which, according to a Home Department Notification dated 26 August 2016, disallowed release on parole when an appeal is pending. The petitioner appealed to the State Government, but the Additional Secretary dismissed the appeal on 14 June 2017, affirming the same reasons. The petitioner had been previously released on furlough and had returned to prison without incident, a fact not disputed by the State. The main legal issue was whether the pendency of a criminal appeal against conviction constitutes a valid ground to deny furlough. The petitioner argued that earlier furlough leave was not misused and that mere pendency of an appeal cannot bar furlough, relying on Division Bench orders of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 196/2017, 97/2017, and 462/2017. The State contended that the rejection was justified under the Home Department Notification and due to the lack of recent medical evidence. The Court analyzed the impugned orders and found that the ground of pending appeal was not sustainable. It observed that the Division Bench in the cited cases had clearly held that pendency of an appeal does not disentitle a convict to furlough. Therefore, the notification could not operate as a bar. On the issue of the outdated medical certificate, the Court held that the defect was curable by directing the petitioner to submit a latest report. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside both the order dated 8 March 2017 and the appellate order dated 14 June 2017. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh application along with a recent medical certificate concerning his mother's ailment. The respondent authority was ordered to decide the application expeditiously, within two weeks from the date of filing, without raising the same objections that had been previously overruled. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and the Court commended the appointed counsel for his assistance.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Parole and Furlough - Validity of Rejection on Ground of Pending Appeal - Not mentioned - The Divisional Commissioner rejected the convict's furlough application citing a Home Department Notification dated 26th August 2016 and the pendency of his appeal against conviction before the High Court. The Court, relying on earlier Division Bench orders in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 196/2017, 97/2017, and 462/2017, held that mere pendency of an appeal is not a valid ground to deny furlough. The impugned orders were therefore quashed and set aside. Held that the pendency of a criminal appeal does not bar the grant of furlough (Paras 6-8). B) Criminal Law - Parole and Furlough - Curing Defects in Medical Evidence - Not mentioned - The rejection order also noted that the medical certificate regarding the petitioner's mother's ailment was ten months old, without any recent treatment records. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a latest medical certificate/report with the fresh application. Held that the defect was curable and the authority must decide the new application without repeating the previously raised objections (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of parole/furlough on grounds of pending appeal and outdated medical certificate was justified
Final Decision
Impugned orders quashed; petitioner to file fresh application with latest medical certificate; respondent authority to decide within two weeks without raising the same objections; writ petition disposed of.
Law Points
- Pendency of criminal appeal is not a ground to deny furlough or parole
- earlier Division Bench rulings binding
- fresh application to be decided on merits without repeating previously overruled objections
