Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 24 June 2021, which directed the release of the respondent on furlough. The respondent had been convicted by the Sessions Court on 30 April 2019 for offences including rape under Section 376(2), unnatural offences under Section 377, and others under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, receiving life imprisonment and fines. He had previously been granted furlough in December 2020 without incident. On 17 March 2021, the respondent filed a furlough application, which was rejected by the Director General of Police on 8 May 2021 due to concerns over his illegal activities in jail, threats to witnesses, and potential law and order issues. The High Court allowed the respondent's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, and noting no misuse during previous furlough. The State of Gujarat appealed, arguing that furlough is not an absolute right and must consider public peace and witness safety under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules. The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions, emphasizing that furlough is a conditional privilege and that the High Court erred in not adequately addressing the DGP's objections based on the respondent's criminal network and threats to witnesses. The Court held that the grant of furlough requires a holistic assessment, and the safety of witnesses and public order are critical factors. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, quashing the grant of furlough to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Furlough and Parole - Conditional Nature of Furlough - Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, Rules 3, 4 - The Supreme Court held that furlough is not an absolute right but a conditional privilege, subject to considerations under Rule 4, including public peace and prisoner conduct. The High Court erred in granting furlough without adequately addressing the DGP's objections based on the respondent's criminal network and threats to witnesses. Held that the grant of furlough must be based on a holistic assessment of all relevant factors, not merely the absence of misuse during previous furlough. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Furlough and Parole - Judicial Review of Furlough Decisions - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The Court emphasized that judicial review under Section 482 CrPC requires a careful examination of the reasons for denying furlough, including threats to witnesses and public order. The High Court's decision was set aside as it failed to consider the serious allegations of witness intimidation and the respondent's involvement in organized crime. Held that furlough cannot be granted mechanically, and the safety of witnesses and public tranquility are paramount. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in granting furlough to the respondent despite objections based on his criminal conduct, threat to witnesses, and public order concerns under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, quashing the grant of furlough to the respondent
Law Points
- Furlough is not an absolute right but a conditional privilege subject to considerations of public peace
- witness safety
- and prisoner conduct
- as per the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules
- 1959 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
