ANAVAR 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 the order dtd. 23/1/2023, whereby the competent Authority has rejected the application of the present applicant for being released on furlough leave inter alia on the ground that the Investigating Officer had opined that there is a possibility of the applicant absconding, if he is released on furlough.

(3.) It appears that vide Rule 4 of the Prisoner (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, categories of prisoners, who are not entitled to be granted furlough has been mentioned. It would appear that while the prisoners convicted for offences punishable under Sec. 392 to 402 of the IPC (both inclusive) have been excluded from the purview of being granted furlough, it does not appear that conviction for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC would automatically dis-entitle the convict to be granted furlough as per the said Rules. It would further be required to be noted here that jail remarks would show that the applicant, who is convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC amongst others and sentenced to life-imprisonment has already undergone approximately 2 years and 7 months of imprisonment and whereas the applicant had been convicted vide judgement and order dtd. 25/8/2022. It would also appear from the jail remarks that the applicant, after conviction had been released on parole thrice and whereas under such circumstances, the apprehension raised by the Investigating Officer that the applicant, if released on furlough, might abscond does not appear to be well founded.