STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus SURESH PANDURANG DARVAKAR

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 1128 · Decided: 13-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
v. 
SURESH PANDURANG DARVAKAR 
APRIL 13, 2006 
B 
(ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959: 
rr. 4(4) and 6-Release of prisoner on furlough-Grounds for-
C Explained-On facts, relative of prisoner refused to stand surety for him-
Besides, High Court while releasing him has not recorded any finding that 
District Magistrate and/or Superintendent of Police did not object to the release 
on ground of public peace and tranquility-Order of High Court set aside-
Prisons Act, 1894-s.3(5A). 
D 
State Government filed the present appeal challenging the order of 
the High Court releasing the respondent on furlough. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Rule 4(4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) 
E Rules, 1959 mandates that the prisoner who seeks to be released cannot 
be released if not recommended by the concerned authority on the ground 
of public peace and tranquility. The High Court has not recorded any 
F 
finding that the report of the District Magistrate and/or Superintendent 
of Police had not objected to the release on furlough on the ground of 
public peace and tranquility. (ll31-E-Fl 
1.2. Further, Rule 6 requires that (a) a relative of the applicant 
should be willing to receive him while on furlough and (b) he must be ready 
to enter into a surety bond. In the instant case, the relatives refused to 
execute such surety bond. The verification reports received by the police 
from the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police indicate that 
G the sister of the respondent refused to stand surety as the respondent 
allegedly committed rape on his step mother. In view of the adverse police 
report and non-compliance with the requirements stipulated under rr. 4(4) 
and 6, the competent authority rejected the application for grant of 
furlough. Unfortunately, the High Court does not appear to have 
H 
1128 
' -
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SURESH PANDURANG DARVAKAR [PASAYAT, J.Jl 129 
addressed itself to these relevant aspects. Order of the High Court is set A 
aside. It is, however, open to the respondent to apply for release on 
fulfillment of the requisite conditions as prescribed in the Rules. 
(1131-A-D; 'F) 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 421 
ci2006. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur in Cr. W.P. No. 504 of 2005. 
S.S. Shinde and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Heard counsel for the appellants. 
c 
None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice. The State D 
of Maharashtra and the Superintendent, District Prison, Akola, Maharashtra 
challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High 
Court, Nagpur Bench accepting respondent's prayer for release on furlough. 
By the impugned order, learned Single Judge directed release of the respondent 
on furnishing his surety of Rs. 500 lying in deposit with the jail authorities. E 
According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court has 
not kept in view Rules 4(4) and 6 of the Prison (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 F 
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 G 
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 Rule 4(4) and 6. Furlough is allowed periodically under Rule 3 irrespective H 
1130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A of any particular reason merely with a view to enable the prisoner to have 
family association, family and social ties and to avoid ill e

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