ABDULKADAR BAU BAKALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

(2.) By way of this application, the applicant challenges an order passed by the jail authority/ sanctioning authority dtd. 7/1/2023, whereby application for grant of first furlough leave of the present applicant has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that police recommendation is negative and that the applicant is convict of serious offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of IPC.

(3.) Having heard learned APP on behalf of the respondent- State and having perused the jail remarks, it would appear that the applicant-convict, who has been convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment has, as of now, undergone approximately four years of incarceration. It would appear that the applicant had been released twice on parole in the year 2021 and 2022, and whereas it appears that the applicant has on both occasions surrendered in time. This Court has also perused the original file submitted by learned APP. It appears that negative police opinion is not based upon any action on the part of the present applicant when he has been released on parole leave, which has disturbed peace and tranquility, rather negative police opinion is based upon observation that reason for being released on furlough i.e. sickness of the wife, is not borne out from any documents with regard to treatment submitted by the wife of the present applicant. It further appears that second aspect of the applicant being a convict of offences punishable under Sec. 302 and 201 of IPC, does not appear to be one of the categories of the offences, as mentioned at Rule 4 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, more particularly, Sub- rule (2) which lists such offence under Sec. 392 to 402 of IPC, and Sub-rule (3), which lists offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act as offences, which, upon conviction would result in the convict being dis-entitled for furlough leave. It does appear that considering the grounds that weighed with the authority for rejecting the application for furlough leave, were not germane to the issue in question. This Court has also considered the fact that when the applicant had been released in the year 2021 and 2022, he had surrendered in time. It also does not appear that he had done any illegal activity during such period.