Bombay High Court
Miyakhan Bhurekhan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 1 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006 CriLJ 2233
Bench: D Zoting, A Lavande
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. N.A. Badar the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.G. Loney, learned A.P.P. for respondents
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.
3. The action denying a furlough to the prisoner is under challenge. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment for life. He applied for grant of furlough leave on 17-5-2005 and the copy of the same was submitted to the Commissioner of Police Amravati for getting prisoner's police report. The Commissioner of Police forwarded adverse report to the D.I. G. Prison, Nagpur vide letter dated 24-6-2005. Considering the said report D.I.G. Prison Nagpur rejected petitioner's application for grant of furlough on 8-7-2005. Furlough is denied on the ground that the Additional Commissioner of Police, Amravati has given adverse report against the petitioner and on the second ground that the petitioner is involved in two more offences and they are pending before the court. One more ground put forward while rejecting the application is that the petitioner is a harden criminal and if he is released on furlough leave there is possibility of taking revenge of the prosecution witnesses and there is also a possibility of breach of peace.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts stated in the report submitted by the Police Commissioner Amravati are not correct. It is submitted that except one case there is no other case pending against the petitioner. The learned A.P.P obtained report from Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati. Perusal of the said report shows that two crimes were registered against the Petitioner however in Crime No. 163/99 he was discharged on 26-10-1999 and there was only one case in which he was convicted and in that case he is undergoing imprisonment for life. Thus there can not be any doubt that the petitioner is not a harden criminal.
5. It is to be noted that the right to the prisoner to be released on furlough is a substantial and legal right conferred on the prisoner. The idea of granting furlough to a prisoner is that the prisoner should have an opportunity to come out and mix with the society and the prisoner should not be continuously kept in jail for a considerable long period.
6. The Commissioner of Police, Amravati has informed the Jailor that if the prisoner is released on furlough there is likelihood of breach of peace and there is also possibility of taking revenge with the prosecution witnesses. We inquired as to what is the material available for the Commissioner of Police to come to this conclusion but no material was pointed out to us. It hardly requires to be said that it is not the sweet will of the Commissioner of Police which can be the basis for coming to the conclusion that the release of the prisoner on furlough would lead to disturbance of public peace and tranquillity. Unless the Commissioner of Police has material from which a reasonable inference can be drawn the right to release on furlough cannot be denied to prisoner by resort to Rule 4. As the State Government has failed to point out any material to indicate that the release of the prisoner on furlough would disturb public peace and tranquillity the rejection of the application is misconceived. Considering the facts and circumstances we find that the petitioner is entitled to get furlough leave. The order of rejecting the application of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on furlough for the period of 15 days from the date of his release on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. He shall report at Police Station, Walgaon once in a week during the period of furlough leave and on expiry of the period of furlough the petitioner shall surrender before the jail authority.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
