Summary
The Court reversed the grant of furlough to the respondent. Eligibility under the applicable Bombay Rules did not create an absolute right: prison conduct and public peace remained relevant. The authority reasonably relied on his unauthorised mobile-phone use and the cumulative risk to witnesses and public order. Its separate reliance on escape or failure to surrender was unsupported. Earlier temporary release for his mother’s illness did not resolve the present objections or compel another release.
Issues
- Whether eligibility after the prescribed period created an enforceable right to furlough under the applicable Rules.
- Whether the authority’s refusal was justified by prison conduct and public-order concerns despite earlier compliant release.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3, 4(4), 4(6), 4(10) and 17, Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959Eligibility remained subject to the Rules’ restrictions and discretionary assessment. Prison conduct and public peace justified refusal; escape or default in surrender did not on this record. (¶¶ 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Held
- Furlough enabled family association and reintegration after prescribed imprisonment without requiring a particular exigency, unlike parole. The governing rules had to be applied in each context. Eligibility did not create an absolute legal right and release had to be balanced against public interest. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Rule 4(10) was unavailable because the record disclosed no escape attempt or failure to surrender after the earlier releases. Refusal nevertheless remained supported by the distinct conduct and public-peace grounds. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- Unauthorised mobile-phone possession and attempted outside contact supported the prison authority’s adverse assessment. The cumulative circumstances, including threats to witnesses and officials and the respondent’s following, supported a reasonable apprehension of disruption of public peace. The decision was neither perverse nor founded on extraneous considerations. (¶¶ 21, 22, 25, 26)
- The previous furlough order addressed the mother’s medical condition and did not determine the authorities’ objections. That earlier release did not require a fresh grant or undermine the present reasoned refusal. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court order granting furlough set aside. Pending applications disposed of.