ADHIKRAO M DUBAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE learned APP waives service of RULE on behalf of the respondents. By consent RULE heard forthwith. Heard parties. 1. This is a petition by Adhikrao M. Dubal, prisoner no.C/5188 who is undergoing sentence in the Yerawada Central Prison, Pune being convicted for having committed offence under section 302 IPC in Sessions Case no.591 of 1984 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Sangli. The petitioner is seeking his release on furlough by this petition.

(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that since his arrest on 5-2-1984 when he was just 17 years old, he is in the prison. The petitioner has been tried alongwith his father and both of them have been convicted for having committed offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The father of the petitioner has availed of parole and furlough. In the case of the petitioner it has been rejected on five occasions on the ground of adverse police report. The petitioner has also preferred application for furlough in July 1995 to respondent no.2 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Pune and was informed that the same was rejected because of adverse police report and that is why the petitioner has filed this petition seeking his release on furlough.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that this court in the case of Sharad Keshav Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 1989 Cri. L.J. 681, has observed as under :. " The idea of granting furlough to a prisoner that the prisoner should have an opportunity to come out and mix with the society and the prisoner should not be continuously kept in jail for a considerable long period. The interaction with the society helps the prisoner in realising the folly which he has committed and the liberty which he is deprived of. In modern times the effort is to improve the prisoner and the punishment is to be considered as an action for reformation of an individual. IT is futile to suggest that a prisoner should be kept behind the bars continuously and should not be permitted to come out on furlough unless the authorities think it wise. In our judgment, the State Government has framed rules in exercise of the powers conferred by Cls (5) and (28) of S.59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 and on framing of such rules. R.17 cannot deprive the prisoner of the right to be released on furlough. In spite of the enactment of R.17 we hold that the right to be released on furlough is a substantial and legal right conferred on the prisoner".