RATILAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, the applicant challenges the order dtd. 7/1/2023 whereby the furlough application of the applicant has been rejected.

(2.) Perusal the impugned order reveals that three aspects have been considered by the authority concerned, and whereas it would appear that none of the aspects, were germane to the issue under consideration. It would appear that the authority concerned had relied upon the fact that the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 354(d), that the police opinion was negative and there was an apprehension that if released, the present applicant might create a law and order. It the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant, which is convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 354 (d) of the IPC amongst others, and has been sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, has as of now completed almost 2 years and 5 months of incarceration and whereas the applicant is only to undergo around 7 months of incarceration to complete his sentence. I also appears that till date, the applicant has never been released on any kind of leave whatsoever.

(3.) Insofar as the aspects which have been taken into consideration by the authority, it is required to be noted that Rule 4(2), (3) & (11) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 lists the offences, upon conviction under which, the convict prisoner would not be entitled for being considered for furlough. It is required to be noted that a person convicted of offence punishable under Ss. 392 to 402 of the IPC, or convicted under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act or under the prohibition of the NDPS Act would be disentitled from being considered for furlough application and whereas neither an offence punishable under Sec. 354 of the IPC or offences punishable under the POCSO Act, have been laid down as categories upon conviction under which the prisoner would be disentitled for being considered for furlough leave. Insofar as aspect no. 2 & 3 are concerned, i.e. negative police opinion and apprehension about creating a law and order issue, it appears that the said apprehension and negative opinion is solely based on the statement of the complainant, who has voiced this apprehension that in case the applicant is released he might quarrel with the complainant or create a law and order situation. It does not appear that there is any independent material which had been verified by the authorities concerned to come to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled for furlough leave.