Denying Furlough Just Because Convict Is Unmarried Is Not A Good Ground: Bombay High Court

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that the jail authorities cannot deny furlough or parole leaves to a convict merely on the ground that s/he is young and is unmarried and thus might flee and not return to the prison. 

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Vrushali Joshi on August 1, ordered the Special Inspector General, Prisons, Nagpur, to consider the application filed by one Prahlad Gupta, 26, a murder convict, who sought furlough leave to meet his family in Uttar Pradesh. The judges, even junked the argument of the jail authorities that since the convict is an 'unmarried' person, he may flee while on furlough.

"Only on the ground that the petitioner is still unmarried, aged 26 then 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. In other words, the Special IG, Prisons cannot accept the report of the police blindly," the judges underscored.

The judges took note of the report filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police on July 26, 2023, stating that the mother of the petitioner was ready to take surety and she was in a position to control the petitioner. The report further stated 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 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. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to rule out the possibility of chance of fleeing away, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside with direction to grant the same by the authorities," the judges said in their order. 

The petitioner convict was an undergoing life imprisonment under charges of murder, house trespass etc. The petitioner served more than four years of imprisonment and by an application filed on May 8, 2023, sought 28 days furlough leave to spend 'quality time' with his family as the same is his 'legal right.'

The bench, however, was unimpressed with the jail authorities' decision and directed it to grant him furlough leaves.

Appearance:

Advocate Sonali Khobragade appeared for the Petitioner.

Assistant Public Prosecutor Nandita Tripathi represented the State.

Case Title: Prahlad Feku Gupta vs State of Maharashtra (WP/793/2023)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment