Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently observed that requiring a prisoner to wait 1.5 years for successive parole, especially in cases of emergency, is arbitrary.

“Though, the cause like death, is now categorised into emergency parole, still the contingency like serious illness of father/mother/spouse/son/daughter; delivery of wife; natural calamities such as house collapse, flood, fire, earthquake definitely is an unforeseen contingency and one cannot speculate as to when such contingency will occur and, definitely, in such a case, the prisoner shall not be asked to wait for one and half year of actual imprisonment, to be undergone by him, when he seek parole leave on any of these contingencies, set out for availing regular parole,” the order reads.

The division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing a petition filed by a prisoner who was denied parole by Nashik Central Prison.

The authorities rejected his application, filed in September 2024, on the grounds that he had been on parole in April 2024 and that 1.5 years had not elapsed since then. The prisoner applied for parole as his wife had fallen critically ill.

The bench noted that a similar rule had been struck down by the full bench of the apex court, terming it arbitrary. However, the rule was reintroduced through an amendment in 2022, despite the judgment.

“We are really surprised to note that despite exposition of law to the aforesaid effect, an identical provision has found its way in the Furlough Rules, through the amendment dated 10/02/2022 and this time instead of one year, the period of completion, being contemplated as one and half year of actual imprisonment to be counted from his last return either from furlough or regular parole,” the order reads.

Therefore, the bench proceeded to strike down the order of the jail authorities while noting that,“..impugned order passed by the Respondent No.3 cannot be sustained, in the wake of the observations of the Full bench and since, the denial of parole to the Petitioner is only on the ground that within a period of 5 months and 11 days of his incarceration, on being admitted to the prison after availing the furlough leave, he is seeking parole, according to us, is a decision which cannot be sustained in law and deserve to be set aside,” the order reads.

The bench directed the authorities to reconsider the application of the Petitioner on its own merits within a week.

Case title: Balaji Puyad vs State of Maharashtra