Prisoners Facing Family Emergencies Should Not Be Denied Parole Due to Waiting Period Restrictions: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that prisoners should not be forced to wait for extended periods, such as one and a half years, to access parole or furlough leave in cases of unforeseen emergencies like serious illness of family members, natural calamities, or childbirth.

The Court ordered the Superintendent of Central Jail, Nashik, to review the parole application of inmate Balaji Puyad, who sought leave due to his wife’s illness but was denied.

The Division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed that emergencies, by nature, are unpredictable and should not be subject to lengthy waiting periods imposed by a circular dated February 10, 2022.

The circular currently bars prisoners from seeking parole or furlough leaves until one and a half years after their last return to jail. The Bench emphasized that critical situations like the illness of close family members, natural calamities, or a spouse’s childbirth demand immediate consideration, irrespective of the time elapsed since a prisoner's last parole or furlough leave.

“Though, the cause like death is now categorised into emergency parole, still the contingency like serious illness of father/mother/spouse/son/daughter; delivery of wife; natural calamities such as house collapse, flood, fire, earthquake definitely is an unforeseen contingency and one cannot speculate as to when such contingency will occur and, definitely, in such a case, the prisoner shall not be asked to wait for one and half year of actual imprisonment, to be undergone by him, when he seek parole leave on any of these contingencies, set out for availing regular parole,” the Bench stated, underscoring that the denial of parole in such cases could be unjust.

Advocates Rupesh A. Jaiswal and Anjali Raut appeared for the petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) M.M. Deshmukh appeared for the respondent. 

The Court noted that Puyad had applied for parole on September 6, 2024, only to be denied on September 30. Authorities cited the February 2022 circular, which the Court found to be overly restrictive and “unsustainable” for emergencies. However, while the bench highlighted the need for potentially striking down the circular, it refrained from doing so, as Puyad’s petition did not specifically challenge its validity.

The Court further clarified that the Superintendent is free to assess the genuineness of the emergency claim under Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, as long as genuine emergencies are treated as grounds for parole. The Court disposed of the petition with this directive, paving the way for Puyad’s case to be reconsidered on its merits.

"Needless to state that as far as the merits of the matter are concerned, it is open for the authority to ascertain, whether the cause cited by the Petitioner is genuine and if it is found to be so, then Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) shall not come in his way in availing the parole leave. In the wake of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is made absolute, by directing Respondent No.3 to re-consider the application of the Petitioner on its own merits, and we expect the decision to be taken, within a period of one week from today," the Court said. 

Cause Title: Balaji v. The State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation No. 2024:BHC-AS:42909-DB]

Click here to read/download the Judgment