The Bombay High Court has denounced the selective and inconsistent handling of prisoner furlough and parole applications, demanding the establishment of a standardized framework to address the issue. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and S.G. Chapalgaonkar, sitting at the Aurangabad bench, criticized prison authorities for arbitrarily denying furloughs based on outdated rules, exposing what the Court described as a troubling “pick-and-choose” approach.
At the heart of the matter is Rule 4(10) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, which allows prison authorities to reject applications if prisoners have overstayed during previous releases. However, the Court emphasized that this rule should be treated as “directory, not mandatory.” Citing precedent from both the Gujarat High Court and its own earlier rulings, the Court clarified that mere delays in surrender—without any intent to escape—should not automatically disqualify an inmate from being granted furlough.
The case before the Court involved two brothers, Bhausaheb and Pintu Gade, both serving life sentences in Harsool Open Jail for murder. Their furlough applications had been denied because of significant overstays during earlier releases—194 days for Bhausaheb and 1,122 days for Pintu. The brothers argued that they had not requested leave for more than a decade, pointing out that their efforts at rehabilitation were ignored by the authorities.
The Court noted troubling inconsistencies in the system, citing examples where other inmates with similar histories of late surrender had successfully been granted furlough. This inconsistency, the judges warned, revealed a pattern of unfair decision-making. “When the authorities are aware of these decisions, they are still not implementing them,” the bench observed, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the rejections.
Additionally, the judges criticized the delay in finalizing a policy drafted by the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons. This policy would have allowed cases of belated surrender to be forwarded to the government for final approval. The Court stressed that until the policy becomes official, prison authorities must adhere to prior rulings, which prohibit arbitrary denials of furlough for delayed surrenders.
Ultimately, the High Court overturned the Deputy Inspector of Police’s rejection of the Gade brothers’ furlough requests and ordered their release for the legally permissible period, subject to certain conditions. The ruling serves as a warning to authorities: selective enforcement of rules will no longer be tolerated, and a comprehensive policy reform is urgently needed to ensure fairness for all inmates.
