Bombay High Court imposes costs on Amravati Central Prison for repeatedly rejecting furlough applications by 1998 Mumbai blast convict

The Bombay High Court recently granted furlough leave to a convict in the 1998 Mumbai blasts case and imposed costs on Amravati Central Prison authorities for repeatedly rejecting his applications for furlough without application of mind [Mohd. Sagir Bashir Chauhan vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons]..A bench of Justices Sunil B Shukre and MW Chandwani said that the statutory requirement of the jail authorities having to record reasons for denying parole is not an empty formality or a license for recording same old reasons almost like a cliché.The Court reiterated that the object of furlough rules is to enable prison inmates maintain their sense of sociability and to avoid ill-effects of continuous prison life."The object of Rules relating to grant of furlough to a prisoner is to enable him to communicate himself with his family members intermittently, so that he does not loose his sense of sociability and either becomes a distressed and disturbed man or develops into a hardened criminal," it stated..The petition was filed by Mohd. Sagir Bashir Chauhan assailing an order rejecting his request for furlough leave.The Court observed that he was granted furlough on six occasions in the past and had always surrendered on the due date. "If, this is the record of the petitioner, we do not understand as to why this time the petitioner has been denied the benefit of furlough leave," the Court stated.The Court further said that the reasons cited by prison authorities for rejecting the application were stereotypical and thus, it wasn't convinced that the petitioner would not return to prison after furlough.According to the authorities, if the petitioner was released, there was a possibility of violence against him and also of disturbance of law and order."These reasons do not make any reference to any particular or specific instance on the basis of which one can make a conclusion that the petitioner may face violence out of public outrage that is still going on against him or that there would be possibility of disturbance of law and order," the Court explained.Considering that the Court itself had allowed a similar plea by the petitioner four years ago under similar circumstances, it took the view that the petition deserved to the allowed. .Thereafter, the Court stated that Rule 2 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules confers discretion upon the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Regional) to appropriately decide the applications for grant of furlough.It emphasized that the discretion is not unguided and is controlled by various other provisions in the rules, particularly sub-rule 7 of Rule 8, which makes it mandatory for the authority to consider furlough applications and to record and convey the reasons for rejecting them."It is a well settled principle of law that whenever there is discretion, it comes with responsibility to exercise it reasonably, fairly and in a manner as to fulfill the object of legislation under which it is given," the Court stated..Referring to Gujarat High Court's judgment in Bhikabai Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors. and also a coordinate bench's judgment in Pralhad D. Gajbhiye vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that the principle object of grant of furlough is to enable the prisoner to have family association and to avoid ill-effects of continuous prison life..The Court underlined that mechanical orders cause inconvenience to the convict as well as the State exchequer due to litigation costs of the convict borne by the State.Thus, it took the view that the sanctioning authority under the Prison Rules must exercise due care and caution in deciding applications for furlough leave, while keeping in view the settled principles of law..The counsel for the petitioner sought a direction from the Court to the prison authorities to bear the cost of his petition. The Court took the view that the prayer was reasonable and deserved to be granted given the manner in which the order was passed."Considering the manner in which the impugned order has been passed, recording some worn out reasons, thereby revealing non-application of mind to the important and relevant facts of the case and also the fact that, this is not the first occasion when the petitioner has been required to experience inconvenience, delay and injustice, we are of the view that prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reasonable and deserves to be granted," it said.Hence, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Superintendent of Amravati Central Prison to pay the costs by depositing it with High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, with the right to recover the same from the concerned officer, in accordance with lawIt further directed the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Eastern Region, Nagpur to release the petitioner on furlough leave, as per his entitlement, subject to reasonable conditions..Note: An initial version of this story said that 1993 Mumbai blasts convict was granted furlough instead of 1998 Mumbai blasts convict. The error is regretted..[Read Judgment]