The State Of Gujarat vs Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota … on 20 October, 2021
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Gujarat vs Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota … on 20 October, 2021
Author: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud
Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5699 of 2021)
State of Gujarat & Anr. ....Appellants
Versus
Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan Asaram .... Respondent
@ Asumal Harpalani
JUDGMENT
Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
1 The appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of
Gujarat dated 24 June 2021. The Single Judge directed the release of the
respondent on furlough.
A Factual Background
2 An FIR, C.R. No. I-31/2013, was registered against the respondent on 6
Signature Not Verified
October 2013 at Jahangirpura Police Station for offences under Sections
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2021.10.20
14:30:21 IST
376(2)(c), 377, 354, 344, 357, 342, 323, 504, 506(2), 120-B, 212, 153 and 114 of
Reason:
1
the Indian Penal Code 18601. Charges were framed. On the conclusion of the
trial, the Sessions Court by a judgment dated 30 April 2019 convicted the
respondent. The conviction and sentence are summarised below:
(i) Section 376(2): life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-,
and in default, simple imprisonment of one year;
(ii) Section 377: life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and
in default, simple imprisonment of one year;
(iii) Section 354: three years’ rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.
25,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of six months;
(iv) Section 504: one year’s rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.
5,000/-, and in default simple imprisonment of three months;
(v) Section 506(2): three years’ rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of one month;
(vi) Section 508: one year’s rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.
5,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of one month;
(vii) Section 323: six months’ rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.
500/- and in default, simple imprisonment of one month;
The respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- under
Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, to the prosecutrix.
All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3 The respondent was released on temporary bail for a period of three
weeks on 16 April 2015 and for a period of two days on 15 February 2019. The
respondent was granted furlough from 5 December 2020 for a period of fourteen
1
“IPC”
2
days by the order of the High Court dated 2 December 2020. Due to the ill-health
of his mother, the respondent was released on temporary bail from 31 January
2021 to 3 February 2021.
4 On 17 March 2021, the respondent filed an application2 for furlough
through the Surat Lajpore Central Jail. The application was rejected by the
Director General of Police, Jail and Reformative Administration 3 on 8 May 2021.
The DGP dismissed the application because:
(i) The Jail Superintendent had given a negative opinion on the furlough
application as the respondent had engaged in illegal activities inside the
jail, including keeping a mobile phone and making contacts outside the jail;
(ii) The respondent if released on furlough may violate law and order;
(iii) The opinion of the Assistant Commissioner of Police 4 was sought on the
grant of furlough and he had raised objections for the following reasons:
(a) During the investigation of the offence, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police 5, had guided a team to arrest the respondent and had disclosed her
official cell phone details to the media to solicit information from the public
regarding the whereabouts of the respondent. On 16 October 2013 and 18
October 2013, the DCP received phone calls from a person claiming to be
a ‘sadhak’ of the respondent, threatening to kill the DCP if she continued to
search for the respondent. On investigation, it was revealed that he was a
resident of Madhya Pradesh and an FIR was registered against him;
2
Judicial/Furlough/1194/201
3
“DGP”
4
“ACP”
5
“DCP”
3
(b) The administrator of the ashram in Surat visited the respondent and the
respondent gave a chit to him in his handwriting for giving a bribe of Rs. 1
crore. The administrator of the ashram and others gave a bribe to the
police officers, medical officers and judicial officers to weaken the case
against the respondent. An FIR against these persons was registered. In
case the respondent is released on furlough, he may continue such
offensive acts;
(c) In order to break the morale of the complainant, her husband, who was a
witness in the trial, was assaulted with a lethal weapon on 28 February
2014. A complaint, ICR No. 50/2014, was registered under Sections 307
and 188 of the IPC against persons connected with the respondent. While
these persons have been arrested, they continue to attract a huge crowd
of followers in India and may commit offensive acts in the future. The
respondent may also threaten the husband of the complainant or other
witnesses if he is released on furlough;
(d) A complaint, ICR No. 31/2014, was registered under Sections 324 and 114
of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act 1951, against two
unknown persons for assaulting and injuring one Rakesh Jayantilal Patel,
a witness in the Asaram case, on 10 March 2014 on his head with a
weapon;
(e) A complaint, ICR No. 69/2014, was registered under Sections 307, 326(A),
and 114 of the IPC against two persons who claimed to be sadhaks of
Asaram for assaulting and injuring one Dinesh Bhagchandani, a witness in
4
the Asaram case, on 16 March 2014 by throwing acid on him and
attempting to murder him;
(f) A complaint, ICR No. 133/2014, was registered under Sections 307 of the
IPC, Sections 25(1)(A)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act 1959, and Section
135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act 1951, against one unknown person for
assaulting and injuring one Amrut Prajapati, a witness in the Asaram case,
on 23 May 2014 by firing a revolver with the intention of causing death.
The witness suffered severe injury and died during treatment;
(g) The offences against the witnesses in Asaram’s case and in the
respondent’s case were committed by one Pravin Vakil. The offences
against these witnesses increased after this accused visited the
respondent in jail on 15 February 2014. Thus, there is a possibility of the
involvement of the respondent in the commission of these offences;
(h) An FIR, CR No. 243/2015, was registered under Sections 307, 452, 120B,
and 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act 1959, for
assaulting one Mahendra Chavala, a witness in the case against the
respondent. The respondent was passively involved in the said incident;
and
(i) In connection with the investigation of the case against the respondent, 42
bags were seized from the flat of a sadhak. Pursuant to the direction of the
High Court, the bags were handed over to the Income Tax Department. A
raid was conducted by the Income Tax Department on sadhaks staying
across the country and crores of rupees worth of properties had been
seized. Most of these investments were on behalf of the respondent and
5
his father, Asaram. During the investigation, an Inspector was threatened
of being murdered and a complaint was lodged;
(iv) The present DCP agreed with the above opinion of the ACP. Given the
conduct of the respondent, his criminal network and his followers, the
DCP objected to the grant of furlough to him;
(v) The respondent was granted furlough in December 2020 on account of his
ailing mother. The furlough was granted with the permission of the High
Court; and
(vi) The first furlough leave application of the respondent was dismissed in
2019. In response to the said application as well, the ACP had given a
negative opinion to not grant furlough, which was corroborated by the then
DCP. The reasons for rejecting the first furlough leave application are the
same as those produced above.
5 Based on the above opinion, the DGP rejected the grant of furlough for the
following reasons:
(i) The respondent is accused of high profile cases of rape and atrocities
punishable under provisions of Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 354, 504, 506(2),
508 of the IPC;
(ii) The opinions of the ACP and DCP indicate that in addition to the main
offence, the respondent has engaged in criminal misconduct to hinder the
judicial proceedings during trial by threatening, assaulting and murdering
witnesses;
6
(iii) frequent assaults on witnesses have been registered against the followers
of the respondent and seven offences have been registered against him;
(iv) one of these seven offences is being supervised by an IPS officer, Shoba
Bhutada, who has been threatened by the followers of the respondent;
(v) the respondent is not a normal prisoner who may be considered for grant
of furlough. He has a group of thousands of head strong followers,
spanning across the country who are willing to commit offences at the
instance of the respondent;
(vi) in case the respondent is released on furlough, the lives of the witnesses
in the original trial will be under threat. The respondent may interrupt the
judicial proceedings for prosecution of the seven offences pending against
him; and
(vii) the respondent is engaged in dangerous activities of organized crime and
has a network of persons and a financial background.
6 The respondent moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for setting
aside the order dated 8 May 2021. The respondent relied on the proviso to Rule
3(2) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 6 and urged that a
prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough every year
instead of every two years, after he completes seven years of imprisonment. It
was also submitted that furlough leave is granted as a matter of right.
7 Allowing the application of the respondent, the Single Judge of the High
Court held that:
6
“Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules” or “Rules”
7
(i) The reasons furnished by the DGP for denying furlough were considered
by the High Court in its previous order dated 2 December 2020, pursuant
to which the respondent was released on furlough for a period of two
weeks;
(ii) No untoward incident took place after the respondent was released in
December 2020 and the respondent did not misuse the liberty granted to
him during the period of furlough;
(iii) Although the respondent was involved in criminal activities earlier, no
illegal activity has been reported since the respondent was released in
December 2020;
(iv) The reasons furnished by the DGP have already been considered by the
High Court and are not reasonable or justified;
(v) The respondent has been under imprisonment for a period of seven and a
half years. Under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, he is entitled
for furlough leave once every year.
8 Based on the above reasons, the Single Judge allowed the respondent to
be released on furlough leave with police escort for a period of fourteen days
from the date of his release on the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-
before the Jail Authority and other conditions that the authority may deem fit. The
respondent was to reside at the residence of his mother in Ahmedabad and was
directed to surrender on the expiry of his leave. On the request of the Additional
Public Prosecutor, the Single Judge of the High Court stayed the impugned order
for a period of three weeks. By an order dated 6 August 2021, the implementation
of the impugned order was stayed until 13 August 2021.
8
9 A Special Leave Petition 7 was filed by the State of Gujarat against this
order. On 12 August 2021, a bench comprising of one of us, (Justice DY
Chandrachud) and Justice MR Shah stayed the implementation of the order of
the High Court.
B Rival Submissions 10 Assailing the order of the High Court, Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat, has made the following submissions:
(i) Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules indicate that
furlough cannot be allowed mechanically as a matter of right. Rule 3
creates an option for the prisoner to be released on furlough and the said
Rule is subject to Rule 4;
(ii) Under sub-Rules 4, 6 and 10 of Rule 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole
Rules, prisoners whose release is not recommended by the Commissioner
of Police or the District Magistrate on grounds of public peace and
tranquility; prisoners whose conduct is not satisfactory in the opinion of
Superintendent of the Prison; and prisoners who have escaped or
attempted to escape from custody or have defaulted in surrendering after
release on parole or furlough, shall not be considered for release on
furlough;
(iii) Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules provides that the Rules
do not confer a legal right on the prisoner to claim release on furlough;
7
SLP (Crl.) No. 5699 of 2021
9
(iv) In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar 8 this Court has
held that furlough can be refused in cases where there are concerns of
public peace and tranquility;
(v) Furlough can be denied if it is not in the interest of the society as held in
Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan 9;
(vi) The facts of the case indicate the gross nature of crime, which disentitles
the respondent to any discretionary relief. The DGP has noted that the
respondent had attempted to bribe public officials; caused injury to the
husband of the complainant and other witnesses; threatened to murder
police inspectors and an inspector of the Income Tax Department; and
attempted to derail the judicial process;
(vii) The reliance placed by the High Court on its previous order dated 2
December 2020 is misplaced as the order did not deal with the objections
of the authorities on denial of furlough. The grant of furlough under Rule 3
is subject to Rule 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules which
accords weight to the opinion of the authorities for grant of furlough.
Unless this subjective satisfaction of the authorities, which is susceptible to
judicial review, is taken away, furlough cannot be granted. The High Court
has, neither in its previous order dated 2 December 2020 nor in the
impugned order, made any observation on the correctness of the
objections of the authorities against the grant of furlough; and
(viii) The purpose of furlough is to enable the prisoner to meet family needs and
to maintain a connection with society. Even if it is accepted that the
8
(2006) 4 SCC 776
9
(2017) 15 SCC 55
10
prisoner is entitled to a furlough of fourteen days in a year after serving a
sentence of seven years, in this case the respondent was granted furlough
on 2 December 2020 and was granted interim bail from 31 January 2021
to 3 February 2021. Thus, the respondent cannot be granted furlough
again in the month of July 2021.
11 Opposing the submissions of the Solicitor General, Mr Sanjiv Punalekar,
counsel for the respondent, urged that:
(i) On 5 May 2021, the father of the respondent, Asaram Bapu, tested
positive for COVID-19 and is suffering from multiple colonic diverticulosis
gastrointestinal bleeding. On 16 February 2021, the respondent’s father
was admitted to the hospital, where it was found that he had an attack of
unstable angina or acute coronary syndrome. The respondent’s father is
suffering from 11 major chronic ailments and suffered from septic shock
and pulmonary embolism in June 2021;
(ii) There is no family member around the respondent’s father and his
condition is critical. The respondent is the only son of his father. The
respondent’s mother is also severely ill and is being taken care of by her
daughter. Thus, the respondent is required to be released on furlough to
take care of his father’s medical care and treatment;
(iii) The appeal against the respondent’s conviction and the application for
suspension of sentence are pending for hearing before the High Court;
(iv) The respondent has been released on temporary bail and furlough leave
on four occasions and no untoward incident was reported during his
release;
11
(v) The furlough leave is a matter of right and is granted periodically to
prisoners to continue their association with their families;
(vi) Apart from the present case, the respondent is an accused in two criminal
cases and has been granted bail in both the cases;
(vii) With respect to the other offences mentioned in the order dated 8 May
2021, the respondent is not associated with the attacks, his name has not
been mentioned in the FIRs and there is no proof to show that the
respondent is connected to the accused in those cases. Since he has
already been convicted, there is no question of threatening the witnesses;
(viii) The infractions referred to by the Superintendent of Prison to the grant of
furlough to the respondent are minor and have no nexus to respondent’s
behaviour once he is released on furlough;
(ix) The difference between grant of furlough and parole is that furlough is
granted to prisoners after they have undergone a specified period of
sentence, parole is a conditional temporary release on ground of good
conduct for a situational relief; and
(x) Rule 3(2) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules provides that a
prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough
“every year” after he completes seven years of imprisonment. The phrase
“every year” must be interpreted to mean every calendar year.
12 Having adverted to the rival submissions of the parties, we shall now
address the issue at hand.
12
C Analysis 13 The Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules were made pursuant to Section
59 of the Prisons Act 1894 and are applicable in the State of Gujarat. Under sub-
Section 5 of Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894, the State Government may
make rules for the award of marks and shortening of sentences. Sub-Section 28
of Section 59 also grants power to the State Governments to make rules for
carrying out the purposes of the Act.
14 Rule 3 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules provides for the grant of
furlough to prisoners and reads as follows:
“3. When Prisoner may be granted furlough.
(1) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period
exceeding one year but not exceeding five years, may be
released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for
every year of actual imprisonment undergone.
(2) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a
period exceeding five years may be released on furlough
for a period of two weeks at a time for every two years of
actual imprisonment undergone:
Provided that a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for more
than five years but not to imprisonment for life may be
released on furlough every year instead of every two years
during the last five years of his unexpired period of sentence:
Provided further that a prisoner sentenced to life
imprisonment may be released on furlough every year
instead of every two years after he completes seven
years actual imprisonment.
Note 1: The period of imprisonment in this rule includes the
sentence or sentences awarded in lieu of fine in case the
amount of fine is not paid.
Provided that if fine is paid during the period of imprisonment
and the total sentence is reduced to a term not exceeding 5
years he shall thereafter be eligible for release in accordance
with sub-rule (1) instead of every two years under sub-rule
(2).
13
Note 2: For the purposes of this rule, the period of
imprisonment shall be computed as the total period for which
a prisoner is sentenced even though one or more sentences
be concurrent.
Note 3: If at any time a prisoner who could have been granted
furlough is either not granted or is refused the same the
period for which he could have been granted the furlough
shall not be carried forward but shall lapse.
Note 4: The period of two weeks may be initially extended up
to three weeks in the case of prisoners desiring to spend the
furlough outside the State of Bombay.
Note 5: An order sanctioning the release of a prisoner on
furlough shall cease to be valid if not given effect within a
period of two months of the date thereof.”
(emphasis supplied)
Rule 4 further stipulates the conditions when furlough shall not be granted:
“4. When prisoners shall not be granted furlough.-
The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered
for release on furlough:-
(1) Habitual prisoners.
(2) Prisoners convicted of offenses under sections 392 to 402
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code.
(3) Prisoners convicted of offence under the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949
(4) Prisoners whose release is not recommended in Great
Bombay by the Commissioner of Police and elsewhere,
the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and
tranquility.
(5) Prisoners who, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the
prison show a tendency towards crime.
(6) Prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of
Superintendent of the Prison, not satisfactory enough.
(7) Prisoners confined in the Ratnagiri Special Prison [other
than prisoners transferred to that prison for jail services.]
(8) Prisoners convicted of offences of violence against person
or property committed for political motives, unless the prior
consent of the State Government to such release is obtained.14
(9) A prisoner or class of prisoners in whose case the State
Government has directed that the prisoner shall not be
released or that the case should be referred to it for orders.
(10) Prisoners who have at any time escaped or
attempted to escape from lawful custody or have
defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the
appropriate time after release on parole on furlough.
(11) Prisoners convicted of offences under the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.”
(emphasis supplied)
Rule 17 of the Rules clarifies the nature of the grant of furlough:
“Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a
legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough.”
(emphasis supplied)15 From a reading of the above provisions it is evident that the Bombay
Furlough and Parole Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to be
released on furlough. The grant of furlough is regulated by Rule 3 and Rule 4.
While Rule 3 provides the eligibility criteria for grant of furlough for prisoners
serving different lengths of imprisonment, Rule 4 imposes limitations. The use of
the expression “may be released” in Rule 3 indicates the absence of an absolute
right. This is further emphasised in Rule 17 which states that said Rules do not
confer a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough. Thus the grant of
release on furlough is a discretionary remedy circumscribed by Rules 3 and 4
extracted above.
16 The applicability of these Rules was considered by a two judge Bench of
this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar 10. Justice
Arijit Pasayat, speaking for the Bench held that:
10
(2006) 4 SCC 776
15
“5. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
High Court has not kept in view Rules 4(4) and 6 of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (in short
“the Rules”). The said Rules have been framed in exercise of
powers conferred by clauses (5) and (28) of Section 59 of the
Prisons Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) in its application to the
State of Maharashtra as it stood then. The expression
“furlough system” is defined in clause (5-A) of Section 3 of the
Act, while the expression “parole system” is defined in clause
(5-B) of the said provision. The underlying object of the
Rules relating to “parole” and “furlough” have been
mentioned in the report submitted by All-India Jail
Manual Committee and the objects mentioned in Model
Prison Manual. The “furlough” and “parole” have two
different purposes. It is not necessary to state the
reasons while releasing the prisoner on furlough, but in
case of parole reasons are to be indicated in terms of
Rule 19. But release on furlough cannot be said to be an
absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from Rule 17.
It is subject to the conditions mentioned in Rules 4(4)
and 6. Furlough is allowed periodically under Rule 3
irrespective of any particular reason merely with a view to
enable the prisoner to have family association, family and
social ties and to avoid ill-effect of continuous prison life.
Period of furlough is treated as a period spent in the prison.
But Rule 20 shows that period spent on parole is not to be
counted as remission of sentence. Since the furlough is
granted for no particular reason, it can be denied in the
interest of society; whereas parole is to be granted only
on sufficient cause being shown.
[…]
7. A bare reading of Rule 4(4) indicates that release can
be refused when the same is not recommended by the
Commissioner of Police in Greater Bombay and
elsewhere, by the District Magistrate on the ground of
public peace and tranquillity.”
(emphasis supplied)
17 In Suresh Darvakar (supra), the Court distinguished parole from furlough.
While both parole and furlough are temporary releases from confinement, parole
16
is granted only for a specific purpose. A prisoner is entitled to apply for furlough
once he has served the minimum years of sentence as stipulated in Rule 3.
18 The difference between bail, furlough and parole was also considered by a
two-judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh 11. Justice
DP Wadhwa, referring to the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary
Release) Act 1988 and the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary
Release) Act 1962, observed that
“17. “Furlough” and “parole” are two distinct terms now being
used in the Jail Manuals or laws relating to temporary release
of prisoners. These two terms have acquired different
meanings in the statute with varied results. Dictionary
meanings, therefore, are not quite helpful. In this connection
we may refer to the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Act, 1988 which has repealed the
Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act,
1962. The Punjab Act was earlier applicable in the State of
Haryana. The language of both the Acts is same and it may
be useful to refer to Sections 3 and 4 of any of these two Acts
to understand the difference between parole and furlough:
[…]
18. It would be thus seen that when a prisoner is on parole
his period of release does not count towards the total period
of sentence while when he is on furlough he is eligible to have
the period of release counted towards the total period of his
sentence undergone by him.”
19 In Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan 12, Justice AK Sikri, speaking for the two-
judge Bench observed that:
“11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough.
A parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners
i.e. an early release of a prisoner, conditional on good
11
(2000) 3 SCC 394
12
(2017) 15 SCC 55
17
behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set
period of time. It can also be defined as a form of conditional
pardon by which the convict is released before the expiration
of his term. Thus, the parole is granted for good behaviour on
the condition that parolee regularly reports to a supervising
officer for a specified period. Such a release of the prisoner
on parole can also be temporarily on some basic grounds. In
that eventuality, it is to be treated as mere suspension of the
sentence for time being, keeping the quantum of sentence
intact. Release on parole is designed to afford some relief to
the prisoners in certain specified exigencies.
[…]
14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from the
prison. It is conditional and is given in case of long-term
imprisonment. The period of sentence spent on furlough by
the prisoners need not be undergone by him as is done in the
case of parole. Furlough is granted as a good conduct
remission.”
Summarising the difference between parole and furlough, the Court noted that
“16. […]
(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional release.
(ii) Parole can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment
whereas in furlough it is granted in case of long-term
imprisonment.
(iii) Duration of parole extends to one month whereas in the
case of furlough it extends to fourteen days maximum.
(iv) Parole is granted by Divisional Commissioner and
furlough is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of
Prisons.
(v) For parole, specific reason is required, whereas furlough is
meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment.
(vi) The term of imprisonment is not included in the
computation of the term of parole, whereas it is vice versa in
furlough.
(vii) Parole can be granted number of times whereas there is
limitation in the case of furlough.
(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular reason, it
can be denied in the interest of the society.
(See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar [State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang
Darvakar, (2006) 4 SCC 776 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 411]
18
and State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [State of
Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 645] .)
After noting the purpose of parole on the one hand and furlough on the other, the
Court indicated the need for a balance to be maintained between two competing
interests while granting parole or furlough- that of reforming the convict on one
hand and the public purpose and interests of society on the other:
“19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting
parole or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of
sentencing, other competing public interest has also to be
kept in mind while deciding as to whether in a particular case
parole or furlough is to be granted or not. This public
interest also demands that those who are habitual
offenders and may have the tendency to commit the
crime again after their release on parole or have the
tendency to become a threat to the law and order of the
society, should not be released on parole. This aspect
takes care of other objectives of sentencing, namely,
deterrence and prevention. This side of the coin is the
experience that great number of crimes are committed by the
offenders who have been put back in the street after
conviction. Therefore, while deciding as to whether a
particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole or not,
the aforesaid aspects have also to be kept in mind. To put it
tersely, the authorities are supposed to address the question
as to whether the convict is such a person who has the
tendency to commit such a crime or he is showing tendency
to reform himself to become a good citizen.
20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for grant of
furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate those who
show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators
ought to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a
commitment to reconcile with society and whose behaviour
shows that they aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus,
parole programme should be used as a tool to shape such
adjustments.” (emphasis supplied)
19
20 The principles may be formulated in broad, general terms bearing in mind
the caveat that the governing rules for parole and furlough have to be applied in
each context. The principles are thus:
(i) Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from
custody;
(ii) While parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency,
furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been
served without any reason;
(iii) The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to
enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with
society;
(iv) Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not
have an absolute legal right to claim furlough;
(v) The grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can
be refused to certain categories of prisoners.
21 The furlough application of the respondent was rejected by the DGP by an
order dated 8 May 2021. The DGP relied on the concurrent opinion of the ACP,
DCP and Jail Superintendent to deny the grant of furlough, based on the
following circumstances:
(i) the gravity of the offences that the respondent has been convicted of,
including, Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 354, 504, 506(2), 508 of the IPC;
(ii) the criminal misconduct of the respondent, during the trial, including
attempts to bribe public officials; threatening, assaulting and murdering of
20
witnesses by followers of the respondent; threatening police officials and
inspectors of the Income Tax Department;
(iii) mass following of the respondent willing to commit offences at the instance
of the respondent; and
(iv) illegal activities while in custody, such as keeping a mobile phone and
attempting to establish contact with outsiders.
22 These allegations have been refuted by the respondent on the ground that
apart from the present case, he is accused in two other offences in which he has
been granted bail. It has been urged that in the offences relating to intimidation
and injury to the witnesses mentioned in the order dated 8 May 2021, the police
has not charged him and he was not involved in any manner. It has been urged
that even otherwise, these offences occurred prior to 2016, after which there
have been no complaints against or in relation to the respondent. The respondent
has laid emphasis on the fact that when he was granted furlough in December
2020, he did not violate the conditions of furlough, nor was there any disruption of
law and order.
23 The DGP has invoked Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) of the Rules to dismiss
the furlough leave application. Rule 4(4) of the Rules provides that prisoners
whose release is not recommended by the Commissioner of Police on grounds of
public peace and tranquillity may not be considered eligible for furlough. Rule
4(6) provides for rejection of furlough leave where the conduct of the prisoner is
not satisfactory and Rule 4(10) provides that prisoners who have escaped, or
attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in surrendering, may
not be eligible for furlough.
21
24 The record does not show that the respondent has made any efforts to
escape from lawful custody. After the grant of furlough in December 2020 and
interim bail from 31 January 2021 till 3 February 2021, the respondent
surrendered to the authorities. Thus, Rule 4(10) of the Rules cannot be relied
upon to refuse furlough leave to the respondent.
25 Turning now to Rule 4(6) of the Rules, the Jail Superintendent has given a
negative opinion based on the fact that the respondent kept a mobile phone
inside the jail illegally and attempted to make contacts with the outside world.
Rule 4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of furlough on grounds of disturbance
to public peace and tranquillity. The order dated 8 May 2021 has adduced a
number of circumstances which cumulatively indicate that the release of the
respondent on furlough may lead to a violation of public peace. The order refers
specifically to the threat he and his followers pose to the complainant and other
persons who deposed at the trial. An attempt has been made to threaten and
suborn the investigating team and the witnesses. The respondent and his father
have a mass following of persons who owe loyalty to them and there is a
reasonable apprehension of a disruption of public peace and tranquillity. During
the trial, attempts have been made to bribe public officials. The conduct after the
trial, in jail, has not been shown to be above reproach. The respondent was
released earlier this year to accommodate a genuine need to attend to his
mother’s health at the relevant time. Based on this, we are unable to agree with
the line of reasoning of the High Court.
22
26 It has been urged that the objections mentioned in the order dated 8 May
2021 were raised by the authorities to the grant of furlough in December 2020 in
spite of which the High Court allowed the plea for furlough. We do not find merit
in this submission. The previous order of the High Court did not deal with these
submissions. The order only referred to the fact that the respondent’s mother was
suffering on account of a cardiac arrest and granted furlough on this basis. The
Solicitor General in fact stated that the earlier proceedings were not contested
before the High Court since the ground for furlough then was the ill-health of the
mother of the respondent. The opinion of the Sanctioning Authority under the
Rules does not suffer from perversity nor does it consider material extraneous to
the Rules governing the grant of furlough.
27 For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court dated 24 June 2021.
28 Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.
………..………………………………………J
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
……..…..…………………………………………J
[B V Nagarathna]
New Delhi;
October 20, 2021
23