ORDER :

Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. M.D. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent­State.

1. The applicant is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He completed 8 years of his sentence. He convicted in Special Case No. 10 of 2003 on 25.06.2007 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Appeal No. 981 of 2007 was allowed by this Court on 29.08.2011. Thereafter, the present applicant with other convicts approached the Apex Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2012. The applicant had been convicted by the Apex Court.

2. The applicant, after once the appeal had rejected by the Apex Court, surrendered on his own on 22.07.2019.

3. It is the grievance on the part of the applicant that he has been denied the furlough leave, although, the main convict­Asgarali has also granted furlough leave, prior to the confirmation of the conviction by the Apex Court. According to the applicant, he is the sole male member responsible for the funds needed by the family. The applicant is therefore before this Court seeking following main relief:

”A” Your Lordships be pleased to allow this application.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to allow this Special Criminal Application, and be pleased to release the petitioner on Furlough leave to the petitioner.”

4. This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Hemant Raval for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent­ State.

5. It is to be noted at the outset that the present applicant has undergone 8 years and 9 months.

6. Prior to the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction in relation to the present applicant, he has not been granted either parole or furlough leave. He has never granted any parole or furlough leave. The details of other convicts have been provided to this Court and it is noticed that Mahommad Faruk Usmangani Haji Faruk prior to the confirmation of the sentence by the Apex Court, has been granted many a time parole leave. The furlough leave was granted to only three convicts, viz. Kalim Ahemad @ Kalimulla Mahomad Habib and Anas Abdul Rashid Machiswala. It is also noticed that, Asgarali who had the lead role in commission of crime in the case, also had been granted furlough leave, which eventually, had been counted in his remission and at the time of his release, 90 days were already considered.

7. In this backdrop of facts, both the sides have argued before this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Raval has urged that the very objective of the furlough is well defined under the Rules and the Full Bench while interpreting the statute and considering the Furlough and Parole Rules, has narrated the true objectives. He further has urged that no purpose is going to be served denying the furlough leave to these persons, which is meant for humanizing the prison system and to maintain continuity with the family life and also for facilitating the confidence in prisoner as rehabilitation and reformation are two very vital aspects of the prison system. He has urged that, this applicant and other co­ convicts who are from Gujarat are from business family and they continued to do business after they were released by this Court and some of them were income tax payers.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Mehta argued that the prison authorities have got the discretionary powers to consider grant or refusal of the furlough due to the prisoners, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the each case. The late surrender of the accused – convict, the gravity of offences, impact of releasing them on public life are some of the aspects which cannot be overlooked by the prison authorities. She has therefore urged that furlough system which is being introduced as a measure of panel reform shall have to be used appropriately by the Court and considering the police report, in the instant case, and more particularly, bearing in mind their involvement in a serious c