STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. versus NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ MOTA BHAGWAN ASARAM @ ASUMAL HARPALANI

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 20-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 330
330
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
v.
NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ MOTA BHAGWAN
ASARAM @ ASUMAL HARPALANI
(Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2021)
OCTOBER 20, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules: Release on furlough –
Respondent was convicted under ss.376(2)(c), 377, 354, 504,
506(2), 508 of the IPC – By order dated 8 May 2021, application
for furlough was rejected by the Sanctioning Authority on the ground
that the respondent had engaged in illegal activities inside the jail,
including keeping a mobile phone and making contacts outside the
jail; has engaged in criminal misconduct to hinder the judicial
proceedings during trial by threatening, assaulting and murdering
witnesses; and that in case the respondent is released on furlough,
the lives of the witnesses in the original trial would be under threat
– Respondent successfully filed petition under s.482 CrPC for
setting aside order dated 8 May 2021 – Aggrieved State filed instant
appeal – Held:  r.4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of furlough
on grounds of disturbance to public peace and tranquility – Order
dated 8 May 2021 has adduced a number of circumstances which
cumulatively indicated that the release of the respondent on
furlough may lead to a violation of public peace – The order referred
specifically to the threat he and his followers posed to the
complainant and other persons who deposed at the trial – An attempt
was made to threaten and suborn the investigating team and the
witnesses – Respondent and his father have a mass following of
persons who owe loyalty to them and there was a reasonable
apprehension of a disruption of public peace and tranquillity –
During the trial, attempts were made to bribe public officials – The
conduct after the trial, in jail, was not shown to be above reproach
– Thus, the opinion of the Sanctioning Authority under the Rules
did not suffer from perversity nor did it consider material extraneous
to the Rules governing the grant of furlough.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules: rr.3, 4, 17 – Right of
prisoner to furlough – Held: rr.3,4 and 17 do not confer a legal
right on a prisoner to be released on furlough. The grant of furlough
is regulated by r.3 and r.4 – While r.3 provides the eligibility criteria
for grant of furlough for prisoners serving different lengths of
imprisonment, r.4 imposes limitations – The use of the expression
“may be released” in r.3 indicates the absence of an absolute right
– This is further emphasised in r.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 rr.3 and 4.
Furlough and parole – Distinction between – Held:  Furlough
and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody –
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 – 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 – Although
furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not
have an absolute legal right to claim furlough – The grant of
furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be
refused to certain categories of prisoners.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From a reading of Rules 3, 4 and 17 of the Bombay
Furlough and Parole Rules, these 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. [Para 15][346-A-C]
2. The principles may be formulated in broad, general terms
bearing in mind the caveat that the governing rules for parole
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @
MOTA BHAGWAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.