Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus SURESH PANDURANG DARVAKAR

Decided
13 April 2006
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 1128 · 2006 INSC 227
Also cited as
  • (2006) 4 SCC 776 (10 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2006 SC 2471 (4 citing judgments)
  • (2006) 2 SCC(CRI) 411 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the appellants.

p. 1129, margin C

None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice. The State of Maharashtra and the Superintendent, District Prison, Akola, Maharashtra challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench accepting respondent's prayer for release on furlough. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge directed release of the respondent on furnishing his surety of Rs. 500 lying in deposit with the jail authorities.

p. 1129, margin D

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court has not kept in view Rules 4(4) and 6 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (in short, the 'Rules'). The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Clauses (5) and (28) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') in its application to the State of Maharashtra as it stood then. The expression 'Furlough System' is defined in Clause 5(A) of Section 3 of the Act, while the expression 'Parole System' is defined .in Clause 5(B) of the said provision. The underlying object of the . Rules relating to 'Parole' .and 'Furlough' have been mentioned in the report submitted by All India Jail Manual Committee and the objects mentioned in Model Prison Manual. The 'Furlough' and 'Parole' have two different purposes. It is not necessary to state the reasons while releasing the prisoner on furlough, but in case of parole reasons are to be indicated in terms of Rule 19. But release on furlough cannot be said to be an absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from Rule 17. It is subject to the conditions mentioned in Rule 4(4) and 6. Furlough is allowed periodically under Rule 3 irrespective of any particular reason merely with a view to enable the prisoner to family association, family and social ties and to avoid ill effect of continuous prison life. Prison of furlough is treated as a period spent in the prison. Rule 20 shows that period spent on parole is not to be counted as remission of sentence. Since the furlough is granted for no particular reason, it denied in the interest of society; whereas parole is to be granted only sufficient cause being shown.

pp. 1129–1130, margin E

Rule 4( 4) and 6 read as follows : Rule 4: When prisoners shall not be granted furlough. The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered release on furlough: xx xx xx (4) Prisoners whose release is not recommended in Greater Bombay by the Commissioner of Police and elsewhere, by the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and tranquility. Rule 6: Furlough not to be granted without surety:

p. 1130, margin B

A prisoner shall not be granted furlough unless he has a willing to receive him while on furlough and ready to enter surety bond in Fonn A appended to these rules for such amount may be fixed by the Sanctioning Authority.

p. 1130, margin D

[Provided that the Sanctioning Authority may dispense with requirement of execution of such bond by relatives of prisoners confined in Open Prisons as defined in clause (b) of rule 2 of Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules 197 l.]

p. 1130, margin E

A bare reading of Rule 4(4) indicates that release can be refused the same is not recommended by the Commissioner of Police in Bombay and elsewhere, by the District Magistrate on the ground of peace and tranquility.

p. 1130, margin F

Rule 6, inter alia, provides that a prisoner shall not be granted furlough unless he has a relative willing to receive him while on furlough and to enter into a surety bond in Form A appended to the Rules for such as may be fixed by the Sanctioning Authority. The proviso authorizes Sanctioning Authority to dispense with the requirement of execution bond by relatives of prisoners confined in Open Prisons as defined in clause (b) of rule 2 of the Maharashtra Open Prisons Rules, 1971. Therefore, the twin requirements flowing from Rule 6 are (a) a relative of the applicant should be willing to receive him while on furlough and (b) he must be ready to enter into a surety bond. In the instant case, the relatives refused to execute such surety bond. The verification reports received by the police from the District Magistrate, Amravati and Superintendent of Police, Amravati indicate that the sister of the respondent refused to stand surety as the respondent allegedly committed rape on his step mother and has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years with fine. In view of the adverse police report and non-compliance with the requirements stipulated under Rules 4(4) and 6, the Competent Authority rejected the application for grant of furlough by order dated 18.07.2005.

pp. 1130–1131, margin G

Unfortunately, the High Court does not appear to have addressed itself to these relevant aspects. It took note of the fact that nobody was willing to stand surety for release of the respondent. The High Court directed that he can be released on furnishing surety of amount lying in deposit with the jail authorities. That is not the only condition for release on furlough. There is another requirement. Even if it is held for the sake of argument that furnishing of surety of any amount lying in deposit with the jail authorities can be construed to be in compliance with the requirements of Rules 6, Rule 4(4) mandates that the prisoner who seeks to be released cannot be released if not recommended by the concerned authority on the ground of public peace and tranquility. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the report of the District Magistrate and/or Superintendent of Police had not objected to the release on furlough on the ground of public peace and tranquility.

p. 1131, margin C

Looked at from any angle, the High Court's order is indefensible. The same is set aside. It is, however, open to the respondent to apply for release on fulfillment of the requisite conditions as prescribed in the Rules. Needless to say that the same shall be considered in its own perspective in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 1131, margin F