GOVABHAI NAGJIBHAI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present petition under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, the petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code imposed in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2001 and Sessions Case No. 78 of 2006, wherein Appeals at the instance of the petitioner, are pending, has prayed this Court to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, releasing the petitioner on personal bond immediately as per the provisions of Furlough Rules. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms. Shah for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted furlough leave application on 29.10.2012, but it was rejected by the IG (Prisons) on the ground that there is restriction order imposed upon the petitioner under Section 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 2009 of 2013, seeking direction to release him on furlough leave. Vide order dated 3.7.2013, this Court directed the petitioner to apply fresh as per the observations recorded by the IG (Prisons) in the said order, which was subject matter of said Special Criminal Application. It is submitted by learned advocate that on 10.7.2013, the petitioner applied afresh for furlough, but it was not decided despite lapse of three months period. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Special Criminal Application No. 3116 of 2013. Vide order dated 15.10.2013, the Court directed to decide the petitioner's application dated 10.7.2013 within three weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

(2.) VIDE order dated 3.11.2013, the IG (Prison), Gujarat State, rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment and if the petitioner is released on furlough, he is likely to abscond and considering the previous incidents, the petitioner is accused in serious crimes and he is in habit of committing offence by forming gang and thus, on such broad grounds/reasons, the petitioner's furlough leave was not recommended and accordingly, on the basis of opinion of two Deputy Commissioner of Police, the petitioner's four furlough leave application came to be rejected. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred two Criminal Appeals against two life imprisonment convictions recorded against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in Criminal Appeal No. 2156 of 2005, the petitioner is granted bail whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of 2012 has been admitted, but the petitioner has not preferred any bail application in the said Appeal. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, as per Rule 3 of the Furlough/Parole, the petitioner is entitled to release on furlough as the petitioner has been prisoned since March, 2000. At the end, learned advocate Ms. Shah appearing for the petitioner submits to issue appropriate direction to the Jail Authority to release the petitioner on furlough leave.

(3.) THE relevant Rule 4(4) (5) (6) and (10) of the Bombay Furlough/Parole Rule, 1959, read as under: