“Only on the basis that the convict has committed a gruesome crime many years ago, it cannot be said that his temporary release on furlough would be against the interest of the society.”
“Ironically, the concerned SHO in his report on one hand mentions that the petitioner’s behaviour is satisfactory, but in the same breadth, also mentions that he can have adverse impact on law, order and security in the area, without assigning any reasons.”
A convict has to keep in contact with the civil society although sporadically, so that his societal roots do not dry up when he languishes in the jail.
The Delhi High Court observed that furlough could not be denied perennially even if the prisoner had earlier jumped parole and was re-arrested after committing another offence.
Supreme Court: In a landmark ruling, the Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., reversed Delhi High Court’s judgment holding
“Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Rajiv Narain Raina, J. allowed the petition to grant furlough to the petitioner and quashed the impugned
Delhi High Court: The Bench of Mukta Gupta, J. dismissed a petition for grant of furlough holding that convicts under Narcotic Drugs and
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of V.K. Tahilramani, Acting CJ and M.S. Sonak, J. dismissed a petition challenging the rejection