'Unmarried Status' Of Convict Not Valid Reason To Reject Furlough; Sanctioning Authority Must Evaluate Overall Situation: Bombay HC

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition that challenged the order of the Special Inspector General of Prison which refused the furlough leave to the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed, “Only on the ground that the petitioner is still unmarried, aged 26 then the possibility of his flee away cannot be ruled out is the reason on which the application has been rejected. We do not consider this to be a good ground, even if the police authority gave adverse report yet the sanctioning authority must consider the overall situation and whether the possibility that is expressed can be said to be a true forthcoming possibility.”

Advocate Sonali Khobragade appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Nandita Tripathi appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

It is the case of the Petitioner that he is serving a life sentence for crimes under Sections 302, 449, 436, and 201 of IPC and has completed over four years of imprisonment. He applied for furlough to spend time with his family, an application for which was denied based on a negative report from the Superintendent of Police. The Petitioner argued that this is not a valid reason for denial. Hence, he requested the Court to set aside the impugned order.

The Court noted the report submitted by the Police clearly stated that the mother of the petitioner is ready to take surety ship and she is in a position to control the petitioner.

The Court further noted that the report also mentioned that if the petitioner is granted leave then it will not create any law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh as the offence was committed in Maharashtra.

The Court observed, “The purpose of parole or furlough leave is to grant the victim an environment to connect with his family. The long incarceration without allowing the inmate to meet his family is not good for the society as well as to the individual inmate. He has to manage the responsibility of his family by intermittently visiting the house.”

The Court said that appropriate conditions can be imposed to rule out the possibility of fleeing away. Therefore, according to the Court impugned order could be set aside.

Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Special Inspector General of Prison.

Finally, the Court allowed the Petition.