Prisoners Cannot Be Asked To Wait For Over One Year To Avail Parole In Emergency Situations Involving Their Family: Bombay High Court

Issues like family members' serious illness, wife's delivery, natural calamities etc are unforeseen and thus a prisoner cannot be asked to wait for one and a half years, till he becomes eligible to avail the facilities of furlough or parole leaves, the Bombay High Court held recently.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande directed the Superintended of Central Jail, Nashik to reconsider its decision on the application filed by the petitioner Balaji Puyad, who has sought parole leaves in wake of his wife's illness but was denied.

"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 underscored.

The bench noted that the petitioner filed application for parole leaves on September 6, 2024 and was denied the same by an order passed on September 30. The authorities, the judges noted, relied on a circular issued on February 10, 2022 which barred prisoners from seeking parole or furlough leaves prior to completing one and a half years of their last return (to jail from parole or furlough) or the start of the actual imprisonment.

The bench held that the decision of the Superintendent to deny parole leaves was on the ground that he applied for the same only within 5 months and 11 days of his returning from an earlier availed furlough, was unsustainable.

The bench opined that the circular of February 10, 2022 itself needs to be struck down, however, did not proceed with the same noting that the instant petition does not challenge the validity of the said circular issue by the State. 

"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) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 shall not come in his way in availing the parole leave," the judges said while disposing of the plea. 

Appearance:

Advocates Rupesh Jaiswal and Anjali Raut appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Mankuwar Deshmukh represented the State.

Case Title: Balaji Puyad vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) 21606 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Order