Gujarat High Court
Keshabhai Punaram Salat vs State Of Gujarat on 27 November, 2020
Author: A. P. Thaker
Bench: A. P. Thaker
R/SCR.A/5150/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5150 of 2020
================================================================
KESHABHAI PUNARAM SALAT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. BHAVNA D ACHARYA(6406) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS MOXA THAKKER APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 27/11/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms.Bhavna Acharya, learned advocate, who appointed as per the order dated 21.10.2020, for the applicant and Ms.Moxa Thakker, learned APP for the respondent - State through video conferencing.
2. The present application has been filed by the convict through jail for furlough leave.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant - convict has submitted that the authority has not considered the fact that the late surrender of 216 days before the jail authority has been regularized by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2019. She has submitted that the authority has not considered every materials placed on record and has committed serious error of law and fact in rejecting the furlough leave. She has submitted that the grounds mentioned for rejection of furlough leave vide order dated 04.09.2020 are not applicable and, therefore, necessary Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 01 08:54:00 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/5150/2020 ORDER order may be passed granting the furlough leave to the applicant
- convict.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent - State has supported the impugned order passed by the concerned authority. She has submitted that there is Rule 4(6) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as'Rules') for the forfeiture of the furlough. She has also submitted that in view of the jail remarks, it appears that the present convict has habit of committing offences. She has also contended that there is no illegality conducted by the authority by passing theimpugned order, which is under challenge. She has prayed to dismiss the application.
5. Now it is well settled law by catena of decisions of this Court that Parole and Furlough Rules are part of the penal and prison reform with a view to humanise the prison system. These rules enable the prisoner to obtain his release and to return to the outside world for a short prescribed period. The object of such a release of prisoner are:
(i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters.
(ii) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life.
(iii) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interests in life.
6. In view of the Prisons Act read with Rules, it appears that the Parole and Furlough system has been incorporated with Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 01 08:54:00 IST 2021 R/SCR.A/5150/2020 ORDER specific object as referred to hereinabove. However, the Parole is not an absolute right of the prisoner. Under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it can be granted or refused or withdrawn as per rules. At the same time, for furlough leave, there is no need of any ground. But, at the same time for granting Parole Leave, there must be some reason.
7. It is pertinent to note that Rule 3 of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1989 provides for the provisions as to when prisoner may be granted furlough. The said Rule 3 reads thus:
"3. When Prisoner may be granted furlough.
(1) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding five years, may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every year of actual imprisonment undergone.
(2) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding five years may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every two years of actual imprisonment undergone:
Provided that a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for more than five years but not to imprisonment for life may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years during the last five years of his unexpired period of sentence:
Provided further that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years after he completes seven years actual imprisonment."
Note 1: The period of imprisonment in this rule includes the sentence or sentences awarded in lieu of fine in case the amount of fine is not paid.
Provided that if fine is paid during the period of imprisonment and the total sentence thereby reduced to a term not exceeding 5 years he shall thereafter be eligible for release every year in accordance with subrule (1) instead of every two years under subrule (2).Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 01 08:54:00 IST 2021
R/SCR.A/5150/2020 ORDER Note 2. For the purposes of this rule, the period of imprisonment shall be computed as the total period for which a prisoner is sentenced even though one or more sentences be concurrent.
Note 3. If at any time a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or is refused the same the period for which he could have been granted the furlough shall not be carried forward but shall lapse.
Note 4. The period of two weeks may be initially extended up to three weeks in the case of prisoners desiring to spend the furlough outside the State of Bombay.
Note 5. An order sanctioning the release of a prisoner on furlough shall cease to be valid if not given effect to within a period of two months of the date thereof.
8. On the analysis of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 3, it is clearly found from the Note 3 thereof makes provisions that if at any time a prisoner who could have been granted furlough is either not granted or is refused, the same the period for which he could have been granted the furlough shall not be carried forward but shall lapse. Now in the present case, this is not the ground of rejection of the application of Furlough. The jail authority has simply rejected his prayer on the three grounds which has been reproduced hereinabove. Now, in view of the decision of the full bench referred to hereinabove and the facts that the prisoner has already been undergone the sentence by the concerned Court for the Jail offences, the Authority ought to have taken into consideration the other facts available on record.
9. In view of the aforesaid observation, the impugned order passed by the competent authority is required to be quashed and set aside and the authority needs to reconsider the request of the applicant for granting him Furlough Leave.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 01 08:54:00 IST 2021R/SCR.A/5150/2020 ORDER
10. For the reasons above, the Application succeeds. Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the refusal of furlough due to the applicant - prisoner by directing the respondent authority to consider the grant of furlough/ furloughs due to the applicant in accordance with law within a period of one month from today.
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) VR PANCHAL / VARSHA DESAI Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 01 08:54:00 IST 2021