Bombay: The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment calling for a uniform policy on granting furlough and parole to prisoners, while criticizing the practice of denying applications solely based on previous overstays.
Court Quashes Denial of Furlough Applications, Calls for Consistency in Prison Rule Application
Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S.G. Chapalgaonkar of the Aurangabad bench made important observations on the interpretation of prison rules and the need for consistency in their application.
The court addressed a case where two brothers, serving life sentences, had their furlough applications rejected due to overstaying during previous releases in 2014 and 2015. The court noted, “The petitioners contend that they had preferred the applications seeking furlough leave to visit their relatives. Respondent No.2 rejected their applications only on the ground that they overstayed for 194 days and 1,122 days respectively when they were released earlier in 2014 and 2015.”
Addressing the legal framework, the court observed, “Rule 4(10) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, has not been properly considered in light of the Full Bench Decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bhikabhai Devshi vs. State of Gujarat [1986 CJ (Guj) 39], which has also been noted and relied upon by this Court at the Principal Seat, as well as the Bench at Nagpur, and in Criminal Writ Petition No.960 of 2019, decided on 09.07.2019.”
Judges Emphasize Legislative Reforms for Fairer Prisoner Release Policies, Highlight Need for Uniform Guidelines
The court highlighted inconsistencies in the application of the rules, stating, “It is now being argued that the explanation given by Mansing Rathod for reporting late to jail was accepted. However, since an offence was already registered against him under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion that the same criteria ought to have been applied, and certainly, the present petitioners should not have been discriminated against on this ground.”
In response to this concerning situation, the court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order rejecting the furlough applications. The court directed, “The petitioners be released on furlough leave for the admissible number of days, which Respondent No.2 shall clarify, upon executing two sureties in addition to their own bond to the extent of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).”
The court emphasized the need for legislative changes, stating, “Dr. Jalindar Supekar, in his affidavit, mentioned that some steps have been taken. However, we are afraid that without changes in legislation, mere circulars or procedural differences will not yield proper results. A uniform policy is required, which can be achieved by amending the rules, given that there are existing rules that form part of the statute.”
To ensure the proper implementation of its order, the court provided specific instructions for the petitioners’ release on furlough, including reporting to the local police station and furnishing details of their stay to prison authorities.
Advocate M.M. Parghane appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Additional Public Prosecutors Priya R. Bharaswadkar and A.V. Lavte appeared on behalf of the State.
Case title: Bhausaheb Ankush Gade and Anr v. State of Maharashtra
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
