Bombay HC Imposes Costs on Amravati Central Prison for Rejecting Prisoner's Furlough Request
The Wire Staff
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
New Delhi: The Bombay high court recently imposed costs on the Amravati Central Prison for repeatedly rejecting the furlough leave requests of a 1998 Mumbai blasts convict "without application of mind". The court also granted the petitioner, Mohd Sagir Bashir Chauhan, furlough leave, Bar and Bench reported.
A bench of Justices Sunil B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani said that jail authorities should not be treating the requirement to provide reasons for rejecting furlough as just a formality.
"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," the court stated.
The court also observed that Chauhan had been granted furlough six times before and always surrendered at the required time – so there was no reason to believe he wouldn't do so this time.
In its reasoning for rejecting furlough, the jail authorities had said there was a possibility of violence against him and also of disturbance of law and order. The high court, however, did not find this convincing.
"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 said.
The bench also highlighted that the rejection of furlough leave using reasons that didn't make sense pointed to the "non-application of mind". "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," the court said.
This article went live on December second, two thousand twenty two, at fifty-four minutes past ten in the morning.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.