Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 4 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 2022 (‘Act 2022’), seeking quashing of order dismissing petitioner’s (convict) request for four weeks furlough, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Moudgil J. held that since the murder convict was a hardcore prisoner as per Section 4(3) of the Act 2022, he was ineligible to be released on furlough. The Court observed that for the sake of the security of society, furlough can be rejected on the rarest of the rare case.
Background
In the present case, the convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs 38,000 in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and 9 months for offences under Sections 302,328,364-A,120-B,506,201,34 of the IPC. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed an appeal which the High Court dismissed.
The convict contended that he requested he Superintendent of Jail (‘Respondent 4’), Sonipat for temporary release on furlough for a period of four weeks in lieu of remission period, to check on the well-being of his old aged parents wherein his presence was required at home to perform certain obligations and also to regain his social ties. He stated that the impugned order was passed in independent capacity claiming that since the he had been convicted under Sections 302, 328, 364-A, 120-B, 506, 201 and 34 of the IPC, he was not entitled to the grant of leave of furlough as per Para 3 of the Section 4(3) of the Act 2022.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that the convict had already availed parole for total 16 times as per provisions of the Parole Act 2012, but as per the Act 2022 he is not entitled to be released on furlough as he was convicted for crime of murder with intention of collection ransom.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that parole and furlough are the parts of the penal and the prison system for humanizing prison administration but the two have different purposes. Further, the Court stated that for the sake of the security of the society, furlough could be rejected in the rarest of the rare case. However, furlough was not a matter of right, and it cannot be a guaranteed benefit, rather, it ought to be a discretionary concession that would be granted or denied based on established criteria, circumstances, and the authority’s judgment.
Considering Section 3(4) of the Act 2022, the Court stated that the convict did not stand eligible to be released on furlough, since he had been punished with imprisonment for life. The Court dismissed the petition and opined that since the convict was a hardcore prisoner as per Section 4(3) of the Act 2022, he did not fulfil the criteria for being released on furlough, therefore, he cannot be granted the concession of furlough.
[Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 6040, decided on 22-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate
For the Respondent: Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr DAG, Haryana
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
