The Bombay High Court has criticized the repeated practice of state prison authorities in passing orders in a “perfunctory” manner while denying convicts the benefits of parole and furlough.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande stated that merely because a local police station report raises objections to a convict’s parole or furlough, which is often without substantial basis, cannot justify the denial of such benefits.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by murder case convict Tabrez Khan, who challenged an order from the prison authorities denying him furlough based on an adverse report from a local police station. The High Court quashed the prison authorities’ decision and granted furlough to Khan.
The High Court noted that in August 2022, the state prisons department issued a circular instructing prison authorities not to reject parole and furlough applications solely based on an adverse police report.
“We hope and trust that the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services is conscious of these directives/guidelines issued by his own department,” the HC bench said.
The rejection of furlough on “perfunctory” grounds was deemed inadequate by the court. The court emphasized that the provisions for parole and furlough exist to help convicts maintain family ties and fulfill family responsibilities. Convicts serving their sentences are entitled to these benefits.
“Time and again, we have noticed that the prison authorities, who are empowered to secure the release of a convict, have acted in a perfunctory manner by merely expressing disinclination that the convict’s release could lead to untoward situations or further offenses,” the bench stated.
“We do not think that the laws are insufficient to address such situations,” it added.
In an affidavit submitted to the High Court, the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services stated that the police objected to Khan’s furlough release due to concerns about the safety of witnesses and the possibility of further criminal activity.
The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, also noted that Khan had pending cases and was associated with a gangster. Khan, convicted in a murder case, is serving his sentence at Nashik Central Prison and is also involved in other cases for which he has been granted bail.
The High Court criticized the remark about Khan’s association with a gangster as unfounded and lacking material evidence.
“We hope and trust that the authorities will refrain from making such baseless remarks intended solely to deny a convict’s rights, who, despite being incarcerated, is not stripped of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the bench stated.
