Supreme Court Stays Release Of Asaram's Son On Furlough; Will Examine If Furlough Can Be Granted Once A Calendar Year or If One Year Have Elapsed Since the Last Release

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the grant of two weeks' furlough to self-proclaimed godman and rape convict Asaram's son Narayan Sai who is also serving a life term in a 2013 rape case.

The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing the state of Gujarat's Special Leave Petition against the June order of the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court granting the respondent-convict furlough for a period of 2 weeks. The bench recorded that the order was initially stayed for a period of 3 weeks, thereafter the stay was extended until August 13 at the request of the state and hence, the order has not been implemented as of date.

SG Tushar Mehta, for the petitioner-state, submitted that as explained in the 2006 decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pandurang Darvakar's case, the grant of furlough is not a matter of right, as culled out from Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, which are applicable in the state of Gujarat. The said Rule 17 states that there is no legal right to furlough and that is subject to certain conditions.

He further submitted that clauses (4) and (6) of Rule 4 contemplate that furlough may be denied in case of prisoners whose release is not recommended by the Commissioner of Police or, as the case may be, by the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and tranquility, and prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Prison, not satisfactory enough.

"In the present case, the respondent is convicted of the offences under section 376 read with section 34 of the IPC. The circumstances as regards public peace and tranquility associated with the release of the respondent are set out in the order of the state DGP. The respondent was released on furlough for a period of 2 weeks in December 2020 on grounds of the ill-health of his mother, and fairly, the state had adopted no adversarial approach on that occasion. In view of the antecedents of the respondent and the nature of crime and acts of intimidation of witnesses and the investigating officer, risk to law and order and public peace and tranquility is apprehended on his release now", recorded the bench.

The bench orally noted that the respondent-convict's release on furlough in December 2020 had been 'uneventful', there being no problems in apprehending him post the expiry of the period allowed and no allegations that he did not surrender, and also that there is nothing on record that his release in December 2020 witnessed any issues of law and order or public peace and tranquillity.

The bench noted that the Proviso to Rule 3(2) states that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough every year after he completes seven years' actual imprisonment. The bench agreed to consider the SLP on the aspect of whether the expression "every year" in the said Rule is to be understood as a calendar year or in the sense of the duration between the last release of the prisoner on furlough, being December 2020 in the instant case.

"Considering the object and purpose of furlough, one is entitled to 15 days every year. Now, the respondent was released in December, 2020. Could he have asked for furlough in January this year also or the right accrues only in December? Your best ground would be whether furlough is to be granted once every calendar year or should one year have elapsed since the last release. This is what is weighing in our minds", said the bench to the SG.

Agreeing to examine the challenge to the grant of furlough on this issue, the bench issued notice on the SLP.

"Pending further orders, there shall be a stay of the impugned order directing the release of the respondent on furlough for 2 weeks", ordered the bench.

Click Here To Read/ Download Order