UDESINH ALIAS TAPO SURABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. H.H. Patel, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the State.

(2.) As this matter pertains to furlough, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected under the order of Inspector General, Prisons, dated 17/01/2001. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this application was rejected on two grounds namely; (i) the petitioner has failed to arrange surety; and (ii) Sarpnach has opined that his release may adversely affect the public peace.

(3.) So far as the first ground is concerned, it is subject to condition on which furlough is granted. It cannot be said to be a ground for rejection of the application. As and when the petitioner arranges for surety, he may be granted his due furlough and there cannot be any adverse affect on this right by the order of IG (Prisons). But, if we go by the amount for which the surety is taken is very nominal and not of any worth in these days of high costs of living. The Inspector General, Prisons, may consider the matter in the light of present scenario and the prisoners may be released on furlough on deposit of cash amount, quantum thereof may be fixed with reference to the nature of the offence or on some reasonable criteria but may not be less than Rs.10,000.00 in any case. An amount of Rs.10,000/nowadays is hardly of any value. This is what suggested by the Court is put in service then, this type of litigation may not come before this Court.