Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two criminal writ petitions filed by life convicts under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) challenging the denial of furlough leave by prison authorities. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2017, Kishor @ Prakash Lalse Sadmek, was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Arms Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, sentenced to life imprisonment, and had undergone 12 years, 4 months, and 26 days. He was released on furlough in 2009 and 2012, but on the latter occasion he reported late by 3 days; thereafter, his furlough applications were rejected. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1111 of 2017, Chaitu Irrapa Wadde, was similarly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, had undergone 13 years, 11 months, and 16 days, and had been released on furlough 9 times and parole 4 times, with late surrender on 2 occasions each. Both petitioners sought furlough, which was denied by the respondents (Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Superintendent of Jail) solely on the ground of previous late surrender. The court framed the issue of whether furlough can be denied solely on the basis of past overstay. The petitioners argued that furlough is a right and that their overall conduct, including long incarceration and good behavior, should be considered. The respondents contended that the late surrender indicated unreliability. The court analyzed the legal position, holding that furlough is a right of a convict under the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and is intended for reformation and maintenance of family ties. The court observed that denial cannot be mechanical; the authority must consider the convict's entire conduct, the period of incarceration, and the purpose of leave. The court noted that both petitioners had undergone substantial sentences and had not committed any prison offences. The court allowed both petitions, directing the respondents to release each petitioner on furlough for 21 days on usual conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, and reporting to the police station. The judgment emphasizes the reformative aspect of punishment and the importance of furlough in the rehabilitation of convicts.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Furlough - Right of Convict - Furlough is a right of a convict and not a mere privilege; it is granted to maintain family and social ties and for reformation. Denial must be based on objective assessment of conduct, not solely on past overstay. (Paras 6-8) B) Prison Law - Furlough - Denial on Ground of Previous Overstay - Mere fact that a convict surrendered late on earlier furlough does not automatically disentitle him to future furlough. The authority must consider the totality of circumstances, including period of incarceration, conduct, and purpose of leave. (Paras 6-8) C) Prison Law - Furlough - TADA Convicts - Life convicts under TADA are entitled to furlough under the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, subject to good conduct. The court directed release on furlough for 21 days on conditions. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who are life convicts under TADA, are entitled to be released on furlough leave despite having surrendered late on previous occasions, and whether the respondents can deny furlough solely on that ground.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to release each petitioner on furlough leave for a period of 21 days on usual conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, and reporting to the police station. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Furlough is a right of a convict
- not a privilege
- Denial of furlough must be based on objective assessment of conduct
- not mechanical application of rules
- Overstay on previous leave does not automatically disentitle future furlough
- Reformative theory of punishment supports grant of furlough to long-term convicts
