:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2005 Babasaheb Bapu Gawade Convict No. C/2150 Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba 416007 ..Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra ..Respondent None for the petitioner Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the respondent CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2780 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2780 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.2780 OF 2005 Shahadata Husain Mahamad Husain Shaikh @ Kallu, Convict No. C-1911, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba ..Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Smt. Ruchita R. Dhuru, Advocate appointed for the respondent. Mr. P.S. Hingorani,APP for the respondent CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.833 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.833 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.833 OF 2006 Vishnu Ramchandra Adlinge, Convict No.C-2216, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba ..Petitioner V/s :2: The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. D.M. Shah, Advocate appointed for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the respondent CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2007 Subhash Shrimant Dhaygude Convict No.C-2215, Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba ..Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mrs.Sonia S.Miskin, Advocate appointed for petitioner Mr. P.S. Hingorani,APP for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND : SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND : SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND SRI SRI SRI A.A. SAYED, JJ. A.A. SAYED, JJ. A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 14TH 14TH 14TH AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 2008 AUGUST 2008 JUDGMENT (PER SRI A.A.SAYED, J.) JUDGMENT (PER SRI A.A.SAYED, J.) JUDGMENT (PER SRI A.A.SAYED, J.) 1. The above bunch of petitions involve common questions of law and facts and are therefore being disposed of by a common order. 2. In above petitions, the petitioners who are prisoners, had preferred applications for furlough leave. However, their applications were essentially rejected on :3: the ground that the petitioners being convicted of the offences under sections 392 to 402 of Indian Penal Code, they were not entitled to be granted furlough under Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1958. The petitioners are challenging the Constitutional validity of Rule 4(2) as also Rule 17, which lays down that the prisoner does not have a legal right to the grant of furlough. According to the petitioners both the above rules violate Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that while furlough is permitted in respect of other convicts, the petitioners cannot be denied furlough merely on the ground that they have committed offences punishable under section 392 to 402 of IPC and that the classification in that regard is not reasonable and does not satisfy the twin test of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the :4: classification in Rule 4(2) is arbitrary and the same has got nothing to do with the object. It is their contention that furlough is recognised right by Courts. It is sought to be argued that if murderers, rapist, abductors and kidnappers can avail the furlough then why the robbers and dacoits cannot avail this benefit? It is submitted that the aforesaid prohibited offences are either seven years or ten years punishment except section 396, whereas murder is punishable by death or life imprisonment. The offences from section 392 to 402 are only aggravated forms of the theft, which is a very common offence and in the light of the fact that the object of the rules of furlough and parole are based on reformation theory of punishments, Rule 4(2) and Rule 17 cannot be allowed to stand and are required to be declared as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. The grant of parole or furlough is a concession given to the prisoner under the system known as "Parole and Furlough Rules", which are framed under the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894. The Parole and Furlough Rules are part of the penal and prison reform :5: with a view to humanise the prison system. These rules enable the prisoner to obtain his release and to return to the outside world for a short prescribed period. The objects of such a release of prisoner can be read from the report submitted by the All India Jail Manual Committee as also the objects mentioned in the Model Prison Manual. These objects are: " (i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters; (ii) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life; (iii) to enable the inmate to maintain and develop his self confidence; and (iv) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interests in life. 7. Rule 3 and 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 deal with the cases when prisoners are granted furlough or declined furlough. The said Rules 3 and 4 are reproduced hereunder: "Rule Rule Rule 3: When prisoner may be granted furlough: 3: When prisoner may be granted furlough: 3: When prisoner may be granted furlough: (1) A prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding five years, may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time for every year for actual imprisonment undergone. (2) A prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for :6: a period exceeding five years may be released on furlough for a period of two weeks at a time of every two years of actual imprisonment undergone; Provided that a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for more than five years but not to imprisonment for life may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years during the last five years of his unexpired period of sentence; Provided that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough every year instead of every two years after he completes seven years actual imprisonment." "Rule "Rule "Rule 4. When prisoners shall not be granted 4. When prisoners shall not be granted 4. When prisoners shall not be granted furlough: furlough: furlough: The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough: (1) Habitual prisoners. (2) Prisoners convicted of offences under Sections 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code. (3) Prisoners convicted of offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. (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 tranquillity. (5) Prisoners who, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Prison, show a tendency towards crime. (6) Prisoners whose conduct is, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Prison, not satisfactory enough. (7) Prisoners confined in the Ratnagiri Special Prison. :7: (8) Prisoners convicted of offences of violence against person or property committed for political motives, unless the prior consent of the State Government to such release is obtained. (9) A prisoner or class of prisoners in whose case the State Government has directed that the prisoner shall not be released or that the case should be referred to it for orders. (10) Prisoners who have at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough. (11) Prisoners convicted of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985." 8. We may usefully refer to the case of Juvansingh Juvansingh Juvansingh Lakhubhai Jadeja vs. State of Gujrat, Lakhubhai Jadeja vs. State of Gujrat, Lakhubhai Jadeja vs. State of Gujrat, reported in (1973) (Vol.XIV) Gujrat Law Reporter, 104 where a Division Bench (M.P.Thakkar and V.C. Rane, JJ) of Gujarat High Court considered the issue of Constitutional validity of Rule 4(2) in detail and came to the conclusion that the classification under the said Rule was rational and based on distinct nexus between the underlying object of the legislation. The observations in the said decision in paras 8, 9, 10 and 11 are reproduced hereunder: " 8.....|in introducing penal reforms, the State that runs the administration on behalf of the society and for the benefit of the society at large cannot be unmindful of safeguarding the legitimate rights of the citizens in regard to their security :8: in the matters of life and liberty. It is for this reason that in introducing such reforms the authorities cannot be oblivious of the obligation to the society to render it immune from those who are prone to criminal tendencies and have proved their susceptibility to indulge in criminal activities by being found guilty (by a Court) of having perpetrated a criminal act. One of the discernible purposes of imposing the penalty of imprisonment is to render the society immune from the understandable that while meting out humane treatment to the convicts care is taken to ensure that kindness to the convicts does not result in cruelty to the society. Naturally enough the authorities would be anxious to ensure that the convict who is released on furlough does not seize the opportunity to commit another crime when he is at large for the time-being under the furlough leave granted to him by way of a measure of penal reform. This appears to be the object underlying Rule 4 which enjoins that prisoners of the specified categories shall not be enlarged on furlough. And that is why Rule 4(1) provides that "habitual prisoners" should not be considered for furlough leave. If committing the offence has become a habit, a prisoner is less likely to respond to the corrective treatment aimed at his reform while he is undergoing the sentence to the extent that he can safely (safely for the society) be set at large before the expiration of his term of imprisonment. If released, he is more prone to the temptation to commit a crime because in his case the crime is committed not merely under compulsion of circumstances or in a moment of passion but on account of his having become habituated to that way of life. Until there is evidence that he has been able to break the chains of habit and master his habitual impulses, it would not be safe from the point of view of the society to throw him in the midst of it thereby exposing the society to further crimes by him. The same idea appears to to run through most of the clauses of Rule 4. For instance, Rule 4(3) concerns persons convicted of offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Apparently persons who indulge in offences under the Prohibition Act either by consuming liquor or by trading in liquor become slaves of the habit or way of life and find it :9: difficult to free themselves from the bondage of habit. That appears to be the reason why it is provided that they should not be considered for release on furlough because a break from the prison life will expose them to the same temptation and the purpose of keeping them away from the habit for sufficient time to enable them loosen the hold of the habit would not be served. Similarly Clause (5) of Rule 4 provides that those who show a tendency towards crime should not be so released. The idea would appear to be that in view of their manifest tendency it would not be advisable to expose them to the temptation and expose the society to the risk. The same purpose is evident in Clause (6) which provides that those whose conduct is not considered to be satisfactory enough should not be considered for release. And Clause (10) also appears to have the same object, in providing that persons who have in the past escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or who have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough should not be considered for being released under the Parole Rules. It is in the light of this purposeful approach to the question regarding excluding certain categories of prisoners from being considered for release that we have to examine the argument questioning the vires of Clause (2) of Rule 4 on the ground of being arbitrary and discriminatory. 9. Sections 392 to 402 occur in Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and relate to offences of robbery and dacoity. The question is : is there any rational basis for selecting this class of offences for being included in the list of the offences for which convicts should not be enlarged on furlough ? Now, in robbery an element of violence is present along with theft or extortion. Violence is either actually used or attempted to be used either for carrying away of the property or for making the victim part with the property. And when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery, the offence falls within the description of dacoity. It is obvious that in dacoity five or more persons come together with the avowed object of obtaining property unlawfully by resort to violent means. When so many persons enter upon a life of :10: crime and form a group which is likely to become an organized gang, it is clear that there is great danger in letting them loose. In order to maintain themselves they take to robbery in an organized fashion and it tends to become a habit or a way of life from which it is difficult to make a break. If one who has been found guilty of such an offence is released on furlough, there is no guarantee that he will not indulge in similar activity as soon as he is let large. None of the twin objects of punishment of imprisonment would then be served. Neither would he be reformed nor would the society remain immunized from his criminal activity for the specified period. It would be dangerous to the society to release him on furlough merely out of considerations of penal reform and humane treatment. As observed earlier, consideration of sympathy for him cannot be permitted to overshadow the consideration regarding security of the society. Similarly with regard to the lesser offence of robbery, it would be extremely hazardous to let the prisoner loose before the expiry of the term of imprisonment. It would be hazardous to do so because when one abandons honest labour for the career of theft or intimidation coupled with violence (which brings easy money though at some risk) it tends to become a way of life and the temptation is too great to resist when the prisoner is at large. The offences of robbery and dacoity, therefore, fall within a class by themselves. The classification is based on the danger inherent in releasing on furlough those who are proved to have unhesitatingly committed crimes against person as well as property and such crimes by their very nature are habit forming and repetitive. It is, therefore, not possible to say that the classification is irrelevant or that it has no nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. It will be recalled that the object is two-fold (1) to enable the convict to break the shackles of his habit and (2) to immunize the society at least for a specified period. It was, however, argued by counsel that if a more serious crime like murder was not included in the list, there was no rational basis for including the offences relating to robbery and dacoity within the fold. Here again, the argument ignores the fact that by and large an :11: offence of murder is committed by a person under some real or imagined provocation or in a moment of passion and the perpetrator of the crime usually has a individuals and not against the society at large. There is, therefore, less danger of his committing a similar crime when he is on leave on furlough. Robbery and dacoity are offences which are directed against the entire society at large and the entire society is exposed to the danger emanating from them. In case of murder only that person against whom the perpetrator has a motive or animus alone is exposed to danger from him and not others. So far as robbery and dacoity are concerned, any victim is a good victim and the entire society is exposed to the risk. It is, therefore, clear that the offences of robbery and dacoity fall in a different category. Whether or not the offence is more serious is not the relevant consideration for withholding furlough. The relevant consideration is whether his release will hamper his reform or expose the society to the very danger to shield from which the criminal is imprisoned. Therefore, the fact that murder may be by an large considered to be a more serious crime is not a circumstance which in any way impairs the reasoning underlying the selection of the offences falling under the specified class viz. the offences relating to robbery and dacoity. Again, the mere fact that some other offences also deserves to be included in the list of offences in respect of which furlough should not be granted (even if the argument is valid) is not a good ground for not including the offences of robbery and dacoity. By experimentation, and by gaining experience the list may be enlarged or modified from time to time. A classification which is otherwise rational and purposeful and bears a nexus with the underlying object of the legislation cannot be branded as obnoxious merely because another class also ought to be brought within the sweep of the legislation. It is not true to say that all evils must be remedied by the same legislation in order to be immune from the charge of discrimination. It is not a valid argument that the Legislature can legislate in respect of all evils or none. Legislation can be implemented by stages. The mere circumstance, that other class of offences may also be included within the list will not render the class which is actually :12: included devoid of rational basis. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to uphold the contention that Rule 4(2) is discriminatory in character and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that the classification has rational basis and has a distinct nexus with the underlying object of the legislation and that it does not introduce any element of hostile discrimination. 10. In the result, we come to the conclusion that Rule 4(2) is valid and intra vires and not vulnerable to the charge of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Both the points urged by the petitioner fail. The petition must, therefore, fail and be rejected. Rule is discharged." 9. We find that the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has elaborately dealt with this issue and we are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench in the said decision upholding the vires of Rule 4 (2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole), Rules 1959. It is to be noted that the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 are applicable to both Maharashtra and Gujarat. 10. The other Rule which is also sought to be challenged in the present petitions is Rule 17 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which reads thus:- :13: " 17. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough." In this regard we may refer to the case of State of State of State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar Maharashtra vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar Maharashtra vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 776, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the release of furlough cannot be said to be an absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from Rule 17. 11. Considering the above, the grant of furlough is merely a right in the form of concession given to the prisoner as a reformative measure as the prisoner has to show good conduct while in incarceration and the same can be refused in the cases as enumerated in Rule 4 of the Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and the prisoner cannot have any legal right to be released on furlough. Thus, in appropriate cases as mentioned in Rule 4 the release of the prisoner on furlough can be refused and it cannot be said that Rule 17 of the Prisons (Bombay Rurlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 offends articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the :14: considered opinion that the classification of Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 is based on rational criteria and cannot be said to be discriminatory in nature and both Rule 4(2) and Rule 17 cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. We find no merit in the petitions. Petitions accordingly stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.)