Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He came to be released from the prison on 4 th September 2014 after he complied with the parole order and furnished the bail bonds. He got extended this parole leave twice, on each occasion for 30 days' period. In compliance with the order granting and extending parole leave, the Petitioner was to report back to the prison authority on 4th December 2014 but he did not report back. The prison authorities, therefore, declared him to be an absconder. On that ground, they also registered the subject CR against him for the offence punishable under section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

. The basis for the registration of said CR is, which the Respondent-Authorities also agree, the Communication dated 29th June 2013 issued by Respondent No.1 and the Circular dated 19th July 2013 issued by Respondent No.3. As stated above, apart from seeking quashment of the CR, in this petition the Petitioner has also assailed this Communication and Circular.

4. Certain important facts having bearing on the issue at hand also need mention. In the year 2013, Respondent No.3 had sought guidance from Respondent No.1 regarding the action wp-951/15(J) to be taken against the prisoners who do not surrender in time after the expiry of furlough or parole leave period. Respondent No.1 by its communication dated 29th June 2013 informed Respondent No.3 that the Prison Authorities themselves are expected to take action against the prisoners who do not surrender after the expiry of parole of furlough leave period, by taking recourse to the provisions of section 224 of IPC and no separate orders from the Government in this regard are required.

. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gawankar placed heavy reliance on two authorities : Ashok vs. State of Mah. [1988 Mh.L.J. 903] and Philip John vs. State of HP [1985 Cri.L.J. 397].

8. Mr. Shinde, the learned PP vehemently opposed the wp-951/15(J) petition. He submitted that it has been a problem of long time that in number of cases, the prisoners after obtaining parole or furlough leave, have not surrendered. The issue in this regard was earlier raised before this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2013. This Court by the order dated 27 th September 2013 took note of the fact that several prisoners have absconded after obtaining parole or furlough leave and, observed that stringent measures like provision under section 224 of IPC need to be invoked against such prisoners who fail to report to custody after obtaining parole or furlough leave. He submitted that in pursuant to the observations made by this Court as contained in the order dated 27th September 2013, a Committee consisting of high officials of the Government was formed to give suggestions to implement the system wherein the prisoners granted parole or furlough leave should be brought back to the prison to undergo the remainder of sentence period. This Committee gave certain suggestions, pursuant to which the Rules of 1959 came to be amended extensively. One of the amended provision is about the registration of an FIR for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC against the prisoner who does not surrender wp-951/15(J) after the expiry of the period of furlough or parole leave.

wp-951/15(J)

16. As stated above, though the Petitioner was not in actual prison on account of grant of parole leave, is deemed to be in the legal custody of the prison authorities and his act of non surrendering after the expiry of period of parole leave can be safely said to be an act amounting to escape, the reason being the "departure" connotes a deviation or divergence from a standard rule or regulation. Under the Prison Rules, Clause 10(5) of Chapter XXXVII (Furlough and Parole to the Prisoners) it is stipulated that the prisoner will surrender himself to the Superintendent of Prison from which he was released on the expiry of the period of parole or furlough. In our considered view, non surrendering to the prison authorities after the expiry of parole or furlough leave period will amount to divergence from the standard rules and regulations. Thus, it can be safely said that the Petitioner has unlawfully departed from the legal custody by non surrendering to the Prison authorities after the expiry of his parole period and the same amounts to escape from the legal custody. The Petitioner's conduct of non surrendering on time after the expiry of parole leave period amounts to escape. Clause (11) of the said Chapter incorporates that before releasing a wp-951/15(J) prisoner on furlough, declaration as under shall be given by him on the release order itself :