Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kunal Goswami, a life convict undergoing imprisonment for offences under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, had served three years, three months, and 16 days of his sentence. He applied for furlough leave on 29 June 2017. The Sanctioning Authority (respondent no.1) directed the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, to submit a report. The police report indicated that the proposed surety, a lady, had been residing at the given address for the last 20 years and had supplied a tax receipt. However, the authority rejected the application under Rule 4(4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, on the ground that the surety, being a lady, would not be competent to control the convict and there was a possibility of absconding. The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The Court heard both sides and examined the police report. It found that the surety was a long-term resident with stable documentation. The Court held that the rejection based solely on the surety's gender was arbitrary and not a valid ground under the Rules. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave on his furnishing a fresh surety or on executing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Furlough Leave - Rejection on Ground of Surety's Gender - Rule 4(4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The petitioner, a life convict, applied for furlough leave. The application was rejected on the ground that the surety, a lady, would not be competent to control the convict. The High Court held that the rejection was arbitrary and not based on any valid ground under the Rules. The surety was residing at the given address for 20 years and had supplied tax receipt. The Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough leave on furnishing a fresh surety or on executing a personal bond. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of furlough leave application on the ground that the surety, being a lady, is not competent to control the convict is valid under Rule 4(4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 20.9.2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough leave on his furnishing a fresh surety or on executing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Nagpur. The petition is allowed.
Law Points
- Furlough leave
- Rejection of furlough
- Surety competence
- Gender discrimination
- Rule 4(4) Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959
- Life imprisonment
- Control over convict
