Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. A very short question is involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the Notification issued by the Home Department dated 23.02.2012. By this Notification, Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules was amended and after sub-rule (10), sub-rule 11 to 19 were added.

"4. The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough:-
(13) Prisoners convicted for offences such as dacoity, terrorist crimes, kidnapping, smuggling including those convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and foreigner prisoners;

5. Mr. Yashpal Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code. Such a person is not entitled to furlough leave in terms of sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

12. The amendment as brought about by the Notification dated 23.2.2012 to the extent of Rule 4, referred to as the principle Rule reads thus:-
"2. In rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 after sub-rule (1), the following sub-rules shall be inserted, namely :-

Mr. Thakur pointed out that Clause 26.4 is similar to sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 of Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules.

Mr. Thakur pointed out that the Delhi High Court held that Clause 26.4 of the guidelines of 2010 does not stand judicial scrutiny which makes prisoner ineligible for furlough merely on the basis of the nature of the crime committed by them. It would amount to snatching their right to at least consider their cases for grant of furlough. Mr. Thakur stated that jfoanz vkacsjdj 34 of 36