Point of Law:
There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough – A parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners i.e. an early release of a prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can also be defined as a form of conditional pardon by which the convict is released before the expiration of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that parolee regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be temporarily on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as mere suspension of the sentence for time being, keeping the quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afford some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies. Such paroles are normally granted in certain situations.

ORDER :

1. The convict prisoner has moved this application with the following prayers:-

“10. The petitioner therefore prays to this Hon'ble Court that:

(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this application.

(B) Be pleased to grant the furlough leaves of petitioner and release the prisoner on furlough leaves on the suitable terms and conditions, in the peculiars circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.

(C) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s which may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(D) Affidavit may be kindly dispensed with as applicant is in jail.”

2. It emerges from the record that the applicant has been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.284 of 2006 on 31.01.2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). He has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1417 of 2007, which has been dismissed by this Court.

3. According to him, he has been in jail for 15 years and 04 months. However, according to the jail authority, his total period of imprisonment is 12 years and 08 months. He, on three times has been granted furlough leave and many a times parole leave. His application for parole leave has been recently rejected by the I.G. Prison on the ground that he had jumped parole on various occasions in the past. His grievance is that once I.G. Prison has regularised his late surrendering and at the same time, has not considered his request for furlough leave. Both cannot go together. Applicant's total 08 furlough leaves had not been granted by the authority and in total 06 furlough leaves had been rejected by the I.G. Prison. Copy of the communication of rejection dated 12.12.2019 is forming part of the record. It also says that after six months, he can once again move an application for furlough leave.

4. Undoubtedly, the incidents of abscondance on the part of the present applicant, as could be noticed from the order impugned, is for six times. Abscondance in the year 2008 could be said a minor mistake, as he surrendered on the very day after the gates were closed. In 2011, he was late by one day. However, in the year 2012, he surrendered late by 228 and was jailed only after the police caught him. In the year 2012 he had absconded for 12 days, whereas in the year 2014, for 8 days and in the year 2014 for 08 days. All these days which in all make 256 days have been condoned.

5. On instructions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that so as to help the cause of the jail convict in future, and as applicant's abscondance status may not jeopardize his interest in many respects, the delay in late surrender is being condoned. And again, when it comes to grant of remission, unless this period of abscondance is regularised, convict may not get that benefit. However, the authority is required to consider the same (such instances of abscondance) at the time when request for furlough is made and there is no incongruity.

6. According to learned advocate Mr. Priyadarshani for the applicant regularising late surrender and not granting furlough leave at the same is a dichotomy, which requires to be addressed.

7. On thus hearing both the sides and chose perusal of material, it is found that the applicant's total period of abscondance runs into almost 400 days. The authority on the ground of his periodical conduct of abscondance chose to reject his ninth furlough. In the past six times, his furlough has been forfeited essentially on the very ground that he had absconded.

8. Wife of the applicant is present before this Court to urge that she had a psychological and psychiatric issues. Her children were young and that was essentially the reason for his late surrender. This Court notices that the authority has chosen to regularise his late surrender. Once having so done, even with a good gesture and purpose and so as to help the cause of the convict. So far as the issue of remission is concerned, this dichotomy gives rise to sharp contradic