The Bombay High Court granted furlough to a convict who was denied the same for years together while observing that merely because the convict overstayed on earlier occasions, that by itself would not disqualify him from the grant of furlough leave.

The Petition before the Nagpur Bench of the High Court was filed against the judgment of D.I.G. Prison, Nagpur, rejecting the application of the petitioner for the grant of furlough.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice M. M. Nerlikar held, “However, the fact remains that from 2014, the petitioner was not released on furlough. The very object of the furlough leave is reformation and social integration and therefore, if furlough leave is denied for years together, it would frustrate the very object and purpose of incorporation of provisions for grant of furlough leave in the Rules. Further, the respondent no.1 has also lost sight of the fact that since 2014, the petitioner was not granted furlough leave, and therefore, merely he overstayed on earlier occasions, that by itself does not disqualify the petitioner from grant of furlough leave.”

Advocate A.S. Band represented the Petitioner, while Assistant Public Prosecutor S. Thakur represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was convicted by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The petitioner is currently languishing in Central Prison at Nagpur.

Arguments

It was the Petitioner’s case that though the petitioner had overstayed for some days from the year 2010, the same could not be a ground to reject his request for the grant of furlough leave.

The Respondents brought it to the Court’s notice that in the year 2010, the petitioner overstayed for 18 days; in the year 2013, he overstayed for 265 days; in the year 2011, for 88 days and in the year 2014, he was late by 56 days.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the Petitioner, on 4 occasions from the year 2010 to 2014, overstayed for the aforementioned period. Considering the fact that since 2014, the petitioner was not granted furlough leave, the Bench noted that merely overstaying on earlier occasions would not disqualify the petitioner from the grant of furlough.

The Bench also took note of the Petitioner’s submission that he undertook to perform the allotted work in the prison, as this was one of the grounds for rejection of furlough leave. “Thus, in view of above discussion, we find that the present petition deserves to be allowed”, it held.

Quashing the impugned order, the Bench set aside the impugned order and directed the Authority to release the petitioner on furlough for the period prayed by him, on such usual terms and conditions which the said Authority may deem fit and proper.

Cause Title: Shankar v. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:7207-DB)

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Anil L. PansareJustice M.M. Nerlikar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.