Convicts Not Denuded Of Article 21 Rights, Prison Authorities Should Refrain From Making Unfounded Remarks To Deny Furlough: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court released a convict on furlough leave observing that the prison authorities rejected his parole in a “perfunctory manner” by merely expressing disinclination to discharge him.
The Bench explained that the accused was entitled to the benefit of furlough and parole, which existed in the prison system to enable a convict to continue maintaining his family ties and discharge his family responsibilities.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed, “Time and again we have noticed that the prison authorities who are empowered to secure the release of a convict who is in their custody on account of he being sentenced to imprisonment, have acted in a perfunctory manner merely by expressing disinclination that his discharge or release from prison is likely to result in some untoward situation including he being indulging himself in an offence. We do not think that the laws are insufficient to take care of such a situation.”
Advocate Nitin Sejpal appeared for the petitioner, while APP S. V. Gavand represented the respondents.
The Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) had issued a circular instructing the prison authorities to not reject the applications for parole and furlough only on the grounds of adverse police reports if the prisoner/convict was otherwise entitled to avail the benefit.
The accused, convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC, had his furlough application rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons due to the possibility of a threat to the life of witnesses and that there may be a possibility of a serious crime that may occur at the hands of the Petitioner. The rejection was supported by a report from the Police Authorities, alleging the accused’s association with the Amin Pathan Gang.
The Court remarked, “The grounds stated for rejection of parole is perfunctory, as it can be seen that the convict who is also an accused in three other cases is directed to be released on bail and he is definitely bound by the terms and conditions imposed upon him by the respective competent courts, which have enlarged him on bail.”
The Court explained that mere apprehension without “furnishing any iota of material” would not lead to denial of the benefit available to a convict under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“However, merely because the police report from the local police station advises the authorities not to exercise the power to release him on parole/furlough, which is merely founded on an apprehension and without any basis, as what is stated in the affidavit is that the Petitioner is associated with Amin Pathak gang, without furnishing any iota of material, as to on what basis such a connect is alleged,” the Bench noted.
The Court further observed, "We hope and trust that the authorities would refrain from making such remarks which are totally unfounded and scribed just with an intention to deny the benefit available to a convict, who despite being incarcerated is not denuded of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India".
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In the wake of the aforesaid reasoning, since the order impugned cannot be not sustained, the Petitioner is entitled for his release on furlough leave and the respondentauthorities, shall so release him, by imposing requisite conditions for his release.”
Accordingly, the High Court made the writ petition absolute.
Cause Title: Tabrez @ Tabbu Darvesh Khan v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. (2024:BHC-AS:27588-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Nitin Sejpal and Akshata B. Desai
Respondents: APP S. V. Gavand
