Bombay High Court: Furlough Aimed At Reformation And Social Integration | Past Overstays Alone Cannot Justify Continued Denial Of Leave
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice M. M. Nerlikar allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the denial of furlough leave to a life convict. The Court quashed the impugned order dated March 22, 2025, issued by the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) of Prisons, Nagpur, and directed the authority to release the petitioner on furlough leave for the period requested. The Bench found that the rejection order was unsustainable in light of the time elapsed since the petitioner’s last release and the purpose underlying furlough provisions.
In its final directive, the Court held that past instances of overstay on furlough leave, particularly those that occurred more than a decade ago, do not, by themselves, justify perpetual denial of such leave. The Court stated the reformative and socially integrative purpose of furlough leave under the law and held that long-past conduct should not operate as a continuing disqualification. The Division Bench concluded the proceedings by setting aside the rejection and ordering fresh consideration subject to usual terms and conditions.
The matter concerns a petition filed by a convict undergoing life imprisonment, who challenged the order dated March 22, 2025, passed by the respondent authority—the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur—rejecting his application for furlough leave. The petitioner is currently lodged in Central Prison, Nagpur. He was convicted by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, by a judgment dated February 22, 2010, and has been serving a life sentence since then.
The petitioner had previously been released on furlough on four occasions prior to 2014. During these earlier releases, he overstayed his leave as follows: 18 days in 2010, 88 days in 2011, 265 days in 2013, and 56 days in 2014. These incidents formed the primary basis of the rejection order passed by the respondent authority in 2025.
However, the petitioner submitted that his last furlough leave was granted in 2014 and that he has not been released thereafter. His counsel contended that past overstays, particularly those which occurred over a decade ago, should not be used to indefinitely deny his right to furlough. He stated that since November 18, 2014, the petitioner had been continuously confined and had not breached any conditions or received any adverse entries thereafter.
Further, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the purpose of furlough leave is rehabilitative in nature and that denying such leave on the basis of old overstays contradicts the reformative object underlying the prison rules. The counsel submitted that the rejection was based on clause 4[d][ii] of the notification dated December 2, 2024, which refers to disqualification on account of repeated default, but that its application must be proportionate and reasonable considering the reformation goals.
The respondents, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition. The State relied on the same instances of overstay cited earlier, stating that the pattern of default demonstrated the petitioner’s unreliability. It was submitted that the rejection order was made in accordance with the rules and in public interest. The APP also stated that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, punishable with life imprisonment, and thus must meet a higher threshold of compliance for consideration of any discretionary relief like furlough.
The Court examined the factual background and relevant legal provisions in detail. It recorded that "the petitioner undisputedly on 4 occasions from the year 2010 to 2014 overstayed for the period mentioned above." However, the Court further observed in its judgment: "The fact remains that from 2014, the petitioner was not released on furlough. The very object of the furlough leave is reformation and social integration and therefore, if furlough leave is denied for years together, it would frustrate the very object and purpose of incorporation of provisions for grant of furlough leave in the Rules."
The Bench acknowledged the seriousness of the prior overstays but also stated the period of continuous incarceration since 2014. It stated: "Further, the respondent no.1 has also lost sight of the fact that since 2014, the petitioner was not granted furlough leave, and therefore, merely he overstayed on earlier occasions, that by itself does not disqualify the petitioner from grant of furlough leave."
The judgment recorded that the petitioner had given an undertaking to perform the work allotted to him in the prison, which was another factor considered by the authority while rejecting his application. The Court took note of this submission and included it as part of the considerations in granting relief.
The Bench concluded that the rejection order had failed to take into account the reformative purpose of furlough and that the rule invoked must be applied in a manner consistent with this objective.
The Court issued the following directions in conclusion of the matter: "Criminal Writ Petition is allowed."
"We hereby quash and set aside the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 D.I.G. Prison, Nagpur and direct the said Authority to release the petitioner on furlough for the period prayed by him, on such usual terms and conditions which the said Authority may deem fit and proper."
"Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms."
"Pending Misc. Applications, if any, also stands disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.S. Band, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. S. Thakur, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Shankar v. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-NAG:7207-DB
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice M. M. Nerlikar
