Purpose Of Allowing Furlough Is For Social Integration, Mere Overstay Doesn't Justify Continued Denial Of Leave: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that mere past instances of overstay during furlough, particularly if they occurred over a decade ago, cannot by themselves justify the continued denial of furlough leave, especially when the convict has not been released since. It reiterated that such denial defeats the very objective of reformation and social reintegration underlying the concept of furlough.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice M.M. Nerlikar was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by a life convict undergoing sentence under Section 302 of the IPC, challenging the rejection of his furlough application. The petitioner had been convicted in 2010 and had not been released on furlough since 18 November 2014. His application was rejected based on four earlier instances of overstay from 2010 to 2014.

The respondents relied on a government notification dated 02.12.2024 and Rule 4(d)(ii) thereunder, arguing that repeated overstays disqualified the petitioner. The Court, however, noted that while the petitioner had overstayed on four occasions between 2010 and 2014, he had not been granted furlough for more than a decade since then. It held that the denial of furlough on the same old grounds indefinitely would frustrate the very purpose of the provision.

“... 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 court observed.

The Court also took note of the petitioner's statement, made through counsel, that he was willing to carry out assigned work in prison, which was another factor noted in the rejection order. Emphasising that furlough is a reformative tool and not merely a concession, the Court found the rejection order unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the authority to release the petitioner on furlough for the period applied for.

Case Title: Shankar v. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur & Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 346 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order