Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. By granting parole or furlough, the prisoner is released from the jail for a short time. It is granted for various reasons, such as, to enable the prisoner to return to the outside would, to enable continuity with his family life, and to deal with family matters, etc. If the prisoner is released on parole, his sentence is suspended for the time being for the period for which he is relased on parole. If he is relased on furlough, his sentence is suspended and remitted. However, grant of parole or furlough is a concession given to the prisoner under the system known as "Parole and Furlough Rules", which are framed under the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894. The purpose and object of granting parole or furlough is, to some extent, considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bikhabhai v. State The 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 objects of such a release of prisoner can be read from para 101 of the report submitted by the All India Jail Manual Committee as also the objects mentioned in the Model Prison Manual. These objects are:

(5A) 'furlough system' means the system of releasing prisoners in Jail on furlough in accordance with the rules for the time being in force; (Bombay Act 27 of 1951). (5B) 'parole system' means the system of releasing prisoners in Jail on parole, by suspension of their sentences in accordance with the rules for the time being in force;

(Bombay Act 23 of 1959) Bombay Act 23 of 1959 further substituted Clause (5) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894, as under:

59. Power to make rules : The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act:

9. As against this, Miss Doshit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that it cannot be said that classification between the prisoners, who are convicted under the Narcotics Act and the prisoners, who are convicted under the provisions of I. P. C., Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force, is in any way unreasonable. Classification is on the nature of the offence committed by the prisoners and with a specific object to curb illicit traffic and/or preventing drug abuse. She submitted that parole and furlough system is introduced for the benefit of the prisoners so that they may maintain contact with their near relatives and friends and may not be uprooted from the society. But it does not give an absolute right to the prisoner to be released on parole or furlough. If the Legislature provides that the said benefit shall not be given to the prisoners convicted for a particular type of offences, then it cannot be said that the said restriction is illegal or ultra vires Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In our view, this judgment nowhere states that prisoners convicted of gravest offence, who are a menace to the social order, should be let loose in the society by suspending the sentence. It should not be lost that in murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons, who are convicted under the Narcotics Act, are causing the death or are inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable, and are causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society. As such, they are a hazard to the society. Even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. The aforesaid judgment, upon which heavy reliance is placed by the learned Advocate to urge that inhumane treatment should not be given to the prisoner, nowhere lays down that by not releasing the prisoner on parole or furlough it would amount to inhumane treatment, or it does not law down that in spite of the prisoner's nefarious activities, for which the prisoner is convicted after prolonged trial, he should be released on parole or furlough. Before anti-social elements create havoc, if Legislature, with an object to curb it, incorporates Section 32A, it cannot be said that it is in violation of Article 21. Personal liberty of persons, who are convicted under the Narcotics Act, is curtailed by due process of law. If a person commits a criminal offence and punishment has been given to him by a procedure established by law, which is free and fair, where the accused has been fully heard, no question of violation of Article 21 arises by implementing the judgment and conviction order passed by the Court. To prisoners convicted of other offences, under the parole and furlough system, some benefits are given, but Parliament, in its wisdom, thought that such benefits should not be given to the prisoners convicted under the Narcotics Act. That cannot be said to be in any way inhumane.