1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 258 OF 2011
Murlidhar Ramchandra Bhalerao
(in Jail), aged about 40 years,
Convict No. C-6270,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Inspector
General (Prison), East Division,
Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri Nitesh Samundre, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ.
MAY 05, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per MRS. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Samundre, learned counsel for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:15:21 :::
2
the petitioner and Shri Mirza, learned APP for the respondents.
2. The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough.
It came to be rejected by an order dated 08.12.2010. Being aggrieved
thereby, this petition has been preferred praying that the said order be
set aside and the petitioner be released on furlough.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
application for furlough came to be rejected only on the ground that
the surety proposed by the petitioner was not willing to stand as
surety for him. He submitted that in fact the surety proposed by the
petitioner is willing to stand as surety, hence the order of rejection
deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be released on
furlough. He has submitted that this is evident from the fact that the
application for furlough has been rejected under Rule 6 of the Bombay
Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959.
4. We have perused the order dated 08.12.2010 whereby the
application for furlough came to be rejected. We find that in the said
order it is also clearly stated that on earlier occasion when the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:15:21 :::
3
petitioner was released from prison, he did not report back in time
and he absconded. The police then traced the petitioner, arrested him
and brought him back to prison. No doubt it is stated that the said
application is rejected under Rule 6, but on perusal of the entire order,
it is clear that the application was rejected on the ground that he had
absconded earlier and the fact that the surety proposed by him was
not willing to stand as surety for him. Thus, even if the person he has
proposed as surety is willing to stand as surety for him, it does not
help the case of the petitioner because the fact that he had absconded
and the police had to arrest him, bring him back to prison remains,
which is also a good ground for rejection of his application for
furlough. One sentence in the order cannot be read in isolation and
the entire order has to be read as a whole and its true meaning is to be
understood. Thus, on going through the entire order, we do not agree
with the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that a convict has a right to be released on furlough and he
cannot be denied this right. To support this contention, he has placed
reliance upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in
the case of Santosh vs. Superintendent, Central Prison, reported in 2003
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:15:21 :::
4
(4) Mh. L.J. 349, wherein it is observed that prison authority cannot
reject an ineligible request of due furlough of the prisoner, who has
surrendered late in the past especially when punishment had been
imposed on him as per the Rules for late surrendering. He pointed out
that in this decision, it is observed that the prisoners, as of right, are
entitled to furlough leave on furnishing appropriate and competent
surety. As observed already by us, this is a decision of a learned Single
Judge of this Court whereas the Division Bench of this Court while
considering a case in similar circumstances, held that such
misbehaviour can hardly be condoned and no unwarranted leniency
can be shown to such a person or persons. In the case before the
Division Bench of this Court also application of the prisoner for
furlough came to be rejected on the ground that he had not
surrendered in time. The said decision is in the case of Ramchandra
Raghu Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri)
1919. In this case, it was observed that in a case where a prisoner
does not report back to the prison after the expiry of the furlough
leave period and overstays for a period of 93 days and even thereafter
has to be arrested for the purpose of inducting him again in the prison,
undoubtedly, it cannot be said that such a person deserves any
leniency. Hence, the very same contention made in the case of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:15:21 :::
5
Santosh (supra) that on account of punishment having been imposed,
the respondents would not be entitled to deny furlough leave was
found to be devoid of substance and was rejected outrightly.
6. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this
Court in the order dated 07.09.2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No.
1319 of 2007 (R.M.S. Khandeparkar and Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, JJ.) in
the case of Kisan Nathu Pardesi vs. State. In the said case also the
prisoner’s application for furlough was rejected as he had not
surrendered in time after expiry of furlough period and he had to be
arrested and brought back by the police. The prayer of the petitioner
in that writ petition that the petitioner should be granted furlough as
it was his right, was rejected.
7. Prisoners time and again claim that furlough is a right
granted to them. Even assuming it is a right, once they have been
given this right and they avail of it, they have a corresponding duty to
report back to the prison in time. The prisoner cannot conveniently
forget this duty and then again come to the Court claiming that they
have a right to be released on furlough. The prisoner cannot abuse
the right and then again claim the same relief from the Court. Once
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:15:21 :::
6
he abuses this right, he loses the right to claim the very same relief as
of right.
8. If a prisoner has not reported back to the prison after the
expiry of furlough leave, he does not deserve any sympathy. Looking
to the past record of the petitioner, the order of rejection does not call
for any interference. Rule discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
*******
*GS.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:15:21 :::