Nagpur: In a scathing rebuke, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has ruled that Nagpur prison authorities cannot deny furlough or parole to a convict simply because they are young and unmarried. The court emphasised that the assumption that an unmarried convict is more likely to abscond is baseless and unfair, directing prison officials to reconsider the case of a 26-year-old murder convict who had been denied leave to visit his family.
The division bench, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Vrushali Joshi, delivered a strong message to the authorities while addressing the case of Prahlad Gupta, a native of Maharajganj in Uttar Pradesh, currently serving triple life sentences in the Central Jail in Nagpur. He had applied for furlough to spend time with his family, but his request was rejected by the prison authorities based on his age and marital status.
Gold Rate
Friday 24 Jan. 2025
“The petitioner’s application for furlough was rejected only on the ground that he is 26 and still unmarried, and therefore, the possibility of his fleeing cannot be ruled out. We do not consider this to be a good ground,” stated the bench, adding, “Even if the police authority gave an adverse report, the sanctioning authority must consider the overall situation and whether the possibility that is expressed can be said to be true. The Special IG (Prisons) cannot accept the report of the police blindly.”
The court underscored the critical role of furlough and parole in maintaining social and emotional well-being of inmates. “The purpose of parole or furlough is to allow the convict an opportunity to reconnect with his family,” the judges said. “Long incarceration without allowing the inmate to meet his family is not good for society as well as for the individual inmate. He has to manage the responsibility of his family by intermittently visiting the house. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to rule out the possibility of fleeing,” they added.
Gupta’s case drew attention due to the unusual grounds on which his furlough was denied. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to three life terms. He sought 28 days of furlough to visit his family in his hometown in Uttar Pradesh. Represented by counsel Sonali Khobragade, he argued that his age and unmarried status should not be held against him. His mother, who had offered surety, was ready to take responsibility for him during the furlough.
However, Public Prosecutor Nandita Tripathi opposed his request, emphasising the severity of his crimes. She argued that releasing Gupta on furlough could lead to him fleeing, particularly given his unmarried status and youth. “The petitioner is unmarried and aged 26. There is every possibility that he would go absconding if released on furlough,” Tripathi argued.
The judges, however, took a different view, referencing a report from the Uttar Pradesh police dated July 26, 2023. It stated that the convict’s mother was prepared to take full responsibility for her son and that his release would not disrupt public order in Uttar Pradesh, as the crime occurred in Maharashtra.
In their final directive, the justices ordered the Special IG to reconsider Gupta’s application within three weeks and grant him furlough under appropriate conditions. “The IG’s order of September 11, 2023, deserves to be set aside,” the bench declared.
