of Maharashtra & Anr Vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar
 Insc 202 (13
Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia
out of SLP (Crl) No. 417 of 2006) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
counsel for the appellants.
appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice.
State of Maharashtra and the Superintendent, District Prison, Akola, Maharashtra
challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur
Bench accepting respondent's prayer for release on furlough. By the impugned
order, learned Single Judge directed release of the respondent on furnishing
his surety of Rs.500/- lying in deposit with the jail authorities.
to the learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court has not kept in view
Rules 4(4) and 6 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (in
short, the 'Rules'). The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers
conferred by Clauses (5) and (28) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 (in
short the 'Act') in its application to the State of Maharashtra as it stood
then. The expression 'Furlough System' is defined in Clause 5(A) of Section 3
of the Act, while the expression 'Parole System' is defined in Clause 5(B) of
the said provision. The underlying object of the Rules relating to 'Parole' and
'Furlough' have been mentioned in the report submitted by All India Jail Manual
Committee and the objects mentioned in Model Prison Manual.
'Furlough' and 'Parole' have two different purposes. It is not necessary to
state the reasons while releasing the prisoner on furlough, but in case of
parole reasons are to be indicated in terms of Rule 19. But release on furlough
cannot be said to be an absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from Rule
17. It is subject to the conditions mentioned in Rule 4(4) and 6. Furlough is
allowed periodically under Rule 3 irrespective of any particular reason merely
with a view to enable the prisoner to have family association, family and
social ties and to avoid ill effect of continuous prison life. Prison of
furlough is treated as a period spent in the prison. But Rule 20 shows that
period spent on parole is not to be counted as remission of sentence. Since the
furlough is granted for no particular reason, it can be denied in the interest
of society; whereas parole is to be granted only on sufficient cause being
4(4) and 6 read as follows :
4: When prisoners
shall not be granted furlough.
following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough:
xx xx xx
release is not recommended in Greater Bombay by the Commissioner of Police and
elsewhere, by the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and
6: Furlough not to
be granted without surety:
shall not be granted furlough unless he has a relative willing to receive him
while on furlough and ready to enter into a surety bond in Form A appended to
these rules for such amount as may be fixed by the Sanctioning Authority.
that the Sanctioning Authority may dispense with the requirement of execution
of such bond by relatives of prisoners confined in Open Prisons as defined in
clause (b) of rule 2 of the Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules 1971.] A bare
reading of Rule 4(4) indicates that release can be refused when the same is not
recommended by the Commissioner of Police in Greater Bombay and elsewhere, by
the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and tranquility.
6, inter alia, provides that a prisoner shall not be granted furlough unless he
has a relative willing to receive him while on furlough and is ready to enter
into a surety bond in Form A appended to the Rules for such amount as may be
fixed by the Sanctioning Authority. The proviso authorizes the Sanctioning Authority
to dispense with the requirement of execution of such bond by relatives of
prisoners confined in Open Prisons as defined in clause (b) of rule 2 of the Maharashtra
Open Prisons Rules, 1971. Therefore, the twin requirements flowing from Rule 6
a relative of
the applicant should be willing to receive him while on furlough and
he must be ready
to enter into a surety bond. In the instant case, the relatives refused to
execute such surety bond. The verification reports received by the police from the
District Magistrate, Amravati and Superintendent of Police, Amravati indicate
that the sister of the respondent refused to stand surety as the respondent
allegedly committed rape on his step mother and has been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 376and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years with fine. In view of the
adverse police report and non-compliance with the requirements stipulated under
Rules 4(4) and 6, the Competent Authority rejected the application for grant of
furlough by order dated 18.07.2005.
the High Court does not appear to have addressed itself to these relevant
aspects. It took note of the fact that nobody was willing to stand surety for
release of the respondent. The High Court directed that he can be released on
furnishing surety of amount lying in deposit with the jail authorities. That is
not the only condition for release on furlough.
is another requirement. Even if it is held for the sake of argument that
furnishing of surety of any amount lying in deposit with the jail authorities
can be construed to be in compliance with the requirements of Rules 6, Rule
4(4) mandates that the prisoner who seeks to be released cannot be released if
not recommended by the concerned authority on the ground of public peace and
tranquility. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the report of the
District Magistrate and/or Superintendent of Police had not objected to the
release on furlough on the ground of public peace and tranquility.
at from any angle, the High Court's order is indefensible. The same is set
aside. It is, however, open to the respondent to apply for release on
fulfillment of the requisite conditions as prescribed in the Rules. Needless to
say that the same shall be considered in its own perspective in accordance with
law. The appeal is allowed.