The main legal point established is that the rejection of furlough must be in accordance with the specific provisions of the relevant rules, and the authority must consider all relevant facts before making a decision.

ORDER :

Dr. A.P. Thaker, J.

1. The present Application has been filed by the applicant-convict through jail to release him on furlough leave. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307 and 309 of IPC.

1.1. It is contended by the applicant that he has preferred application for his furlough leave to the authority however, his request have been rejected by I.G. Prison on 04.01.2021 mainly on the grounds as under:-

(i) Police opinion is negative;

(ii) Prisoner has been sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 452, 307 and 309 of I.P.C..

(iii) As per the statement of complainant dated 31.08.2020, the complainant is apprehending that the prisoner can come at Nadiad and he can assault to him and his daughter, in case he is released.

2. Heard Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned APP for the respondent State through Video-conferencing.

3. Learned APP for the respondent State has submitted that there is Rule 4(6) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') for the forfeiture of the furlough. As per the impugned order, furlough has not been rejected permanently but liberty has been granted to the applicant to apply after 6 months for furlough. She has also submitted that in view of the jail remarks, it appears that the present convict has committed a very serious offence. She has also contended that there is no illegality conducted by the authority by passing the impugned order, which is under challenge. She has prayed to dismiss the application.

4. Now it is well settled law by catena of decisions of this Court that Parole and Furlough Rules are part of the penal and prison reform with a view to humanize the prison system. These rules enable the prisoner to obtain his release and to return to the outside world for a short prescribed period. The object of such a release of prisoner are:

(i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters.

(ii) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life.

(iii) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interests in life.

5. In view of the Prisons Act read with Rules, it appears that the Parole and Furlough system has been incorporated with specific object as referred to hereinabove. However, the Parole is not an absolute right of the prisoner. Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it can be granted or refused or withdrawn as per rules. At the same time, for furlough leave, there is no need of any ground. But, at the same time for granting Parole Leave, there must be some reason.

6. As observed in the case of Bhikabhai Devshi vs. State of Gujarat and Others (supra), the full bench of this Court has observed in Para-23 as under:

"23. Rule 1316 of the Bombay Jail Manual provides that no prisoner shall be punished twice for the same offence. Therefore, once a prisoner is punished for his prison offence of late surrender by the Superintendent the matter of prison offence will rest there and any other punishment thereafter for the same Act or misconduct is barred."

6.1. In Para-27 and 28 of the said judgment, the full bench has observed as under:

"The rationale and principle behind Rule 4 is clear. The furlough system has been introduced as a measure of penal reform and to harmonise the penal system and to enable the prisoner to maintain continuity with his family life and to deal with the family matters and to save him from evil effects of continuous jail life and to enable him to gain confidence and to maintain constructive hopes and active interest in life. . ..... It is not possible to hold that irrespective of all these circumstances such a prisoner surrendering late have to be examined on merits and the prison authority will have to power duty and discretion to consider and to grant or refuse furlough.

6.2. At the same time, In Para-29 of the said judgment, the full bench has observed as under: