Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rambharose @ Ranga Pannalal Malviya, was a life convict undergoing sentence for offences under Sections 147 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He had undergone 11 years, 10 months, and 13 days of imprisonment. He applied for furlough leave for 28 days, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Nagpur, by order dated 24-8-2017. The rejection was based on the petitioner's past conduct: he had been granted parole on 8-8-2008 but surrendered late by 117 days on 3-3-2009. Subsequently, when released on furlough on 7-9-2009, he was brought back to prison only after 1055 days on 24-8-2012. The petitioner had earlier challenged a similar refusal in Criminal Writ Petition No. 373/2017, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same court, taking note of the 1055-day overstay. In the present petition, the court considered the decision in Bharat @ Velji Govindji Panchal @ Lohar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1624/2004 and connected matters, dated 25-2-2006), which held that authorities may consider various factors like past record, reason for overstay, and whether the prisoner surrendered or was arrested. The court found that the petitioner's history of overstaying by 117 days and 1055 days indicated a propensity to abscond, and the authorities had rightly exercised their discretion to refuse furlough. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the refusal was not arbitrary and that furlough is a privilege, not a right.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Furlough Leave - Discretion of Authorities - Past Overstay - The court considered whether a life convict who had previously overstayed parole by 117 days and furlough by 1055 days could be denied further furlough. The court held that the authorities have discretion to refuse furlough based on past conduct, and such refusal is not arbitrary. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the rejection order. (Paras 2-4) B) Prisons Law - Furlough Leave - Right vs Privilege - The court reiterated that furlough is a privilege and not a right, and the authorities must consider factors like past record and reasons for overstay. The court found that the petitioner's history of absconding justified the refusal. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a convict with a history of overstaying parole and furlough is entitled to furlough leave as a matter of right, and whether the authorities can refuse furlough solely on the basis of past overstay.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Furlough is a privilege
- not a right
- past conduct of overstay is a relevant factor
- authorities have discretion to refuse furlough based on past record
- principle of proportionality in considering overstay duration
