Furlough eligibility rules apply only to convicted prisoners, not to those with pending charges; adverse police reports require substantiation beyond mere apprehension for denial.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. NERLIKAR, J .

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally.

3. The present petition is being filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It takes exception to the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1, Deputy Inspector General Prison (East Region), Nagpur, wherein the furlough leave application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of Adverse Police Report and secondly on the ground that the petitioner is accused in Crime No.14/2021 registered with Police Station Murtizapur, Dist. Akola under Sections 20 (B), 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”), Sections 4 , 25 of the ARMS ACT , Sections 50 , 277 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . The said case is pending with the Sessions Court at Akola as ST No. 34/2021.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”). It is the contention of the petitioner that impugned order is passed without application of mind, as the petitioner was not convicted in the Crime No.14/2021 and the case is still pending and therefore, the respondent No.1 ought not to have considered the bar provided in the Notification dated 02.12.2024. Respondent No.1 has committed an error by applying Rule 4 (2)(e)(l) under Chapter II of Notification dated 02.12.2024. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the Adverse Police Report of the petitioner is far away from the actual facts as the petitioner got bail in Crime No.14/2021 on 07.06.2021, and thereafter, no offence was registered against him. It is only in Crime No.191/2014 (Sessions Case No.134/2014), he was awarded punishment of life imprisonment which he is undergoing. There are no complaints against the petitioner and therefore, the Police Report is not based on actual facts. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently argued that the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The Notification dated 02.12.2024 bars the offender like the present petitioner. He is heavily relied on Rule 4 (2)(e)(l) under Chapter II of Notification dated 02.12.2024. He has also relied on the Police Report dated 01.01.2025 which was addressed to the respondent No.1 by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Akola and accordingly, he has supported impugned order dated 31.01.2025.

5. Upon careful perusal of the petition, documents annexed thereto and also arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for parties at length, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302 as well as 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in Crime No.191/2014 in Sessions Case No.134/2014. It seems from the record that he was convicted under Sections 302 , 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE for life imprisonment and under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE for two years. Secondly, it is not in dispute that in the year 2021, Crime No.14/2021 was registered under the provisions of sections 20(B), 25 of NDPS Act, Sections 4 , 25 of the ARMS ACT and Sections 50 , 277 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT against the petitioner. The petitioner has undergone 3 years, 11 months and 10 days till 11.11.2024 and therefore, as he has undergone more than 3 years, he was eligible for furlough leave as per Rule 3(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for furlough leave by application dated 05.11.2024. After completing the formalities, respondent No.1 was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for furlough leave as there was bar contemplated under Notification dated 02.12.2024 and m