Furlough must be balanced against public interest, SC refuses relief to Narayan Sai

Analysing the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules which are applicable in Gujarat, the bench said that the Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to be released on furlough.The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society.


PTI | New Delhi | Updated: 20-10-2021 19:23 IST | Created: 20-10-2021 19:23 IST
Furlough must be balanced against public interest, SC refuses relief to Narayan Sai
  • Country:
  • India

The grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said as it set aside the Gujarat High Court order granting 14-day furlough to rape convict Narayan Sai, son of self-styled godman Asaram Bapu. The top court said that Sai and his father have a mass following of persons who owe loyalty to them and there is a reasonable apprehension of disruption of public peace and tranquillity. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna allowed a plea of the Gujarat government challenging the June 24 order of the high court granting furlough to Sai.

"For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgement and order of the High Court dated June 24, 2021," it said. Analysing the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules which are applicable in Gujarat, the bench said that the Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to be released on furlough.

"The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society. Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough," it said, adding that "the grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners". It said that grant of furlough is regulated by Rule 3 and Rule 4 and while Rule 3 provides the eligibility criteria for grant of furlough for prisoners serving different lengths of imprisonment, Rule 4 imposes limitations. "The use of the expression 'may be released' in Rule 3 indicates the absence of an absolute right. This is further emphasised in Rule 17 which states that said Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough. Thus the grant of release on furlough is a discretionary remedy circumscribed by Rules 3 and 4," the bench said. It said as principles formulated in broad and general terms, while parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason. Dealing with the case, the bench said that the furlough application of Sai was rejected by the DGP by an order dated May 8, 2021, who had relied on the concurrent opinion of the ACP, DCP, and Jail Superintendent to deny the grant of furlough. It noted that the Jail Superintendent has given a negative opinion based on the fact that the respondent kept a mobile phone inside the jail illegally and attempted to make contacts with the outside world. The bench said, "Rule 4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of furlough on grounds of disturbance to public peace and tranquillity. The order dated May 8, 2021, has adduced a number of circumstances which cumulatively indicate that the release of the respondent on furlough may lead to a violation of public peace". It said that the May 8, order refers specifically to the threat he and his followers pose to the complainant and other persons who deposed at the trial. "An attempt has been made to threaten and suborn the investigating team and the witnesses. The respondent (Sai) and his father have a mass following of persons who owe loyalty to them and there is a reasonable apprehension of disruption of public peace and tranquillity," the bench said. The bench noted that during the trial, attempts have been made to bribe public officials and the conduct after the trial, in jail, has not been shown to be above reproach. "The respondent was released earlier this year to accommodate a genuine need to attend to his mother's health at the relevant time. Based on this, we are unable to agree with the line of reasoning of the High Court," it said. The bench said that the opinion of the sanctioning authority under the Rules does not suffer from perversity nor does it consider material extraneous to the Rules governing the grant of furlough. On August 12, the top court had stayed the Gujarat High Court order giving two-week furlough to Sai.

On April 30, 2019, Sai was convicted under sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (assault), 506-2 (criminal intimidation), and 120-B (conspiracy) of IPC by a Surat court and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In 2013, after Asaram was arrested for allegedly raping a girl in Rajasthan, two Surat-based sisters had accused Asaram and his son of sexual exploitation.

The elder sister had accused Asaram of sexual assaults between 1997 and 2006 when she lived at his Ahmedabad ashram.

The younger sister had accused the godman's son of sexual assaults when she lived at Asaram's ashram in the Jahangirpura area of Surat between 2002 and 2005.

The incidents of multiple sexual assaults and unnatural sex with the victim had taken place between 2002 and 2005, but the case against Sai had been filed only in 2013.

Sai was arrested from the Delhi-Haryana border in December 2013.

When Sai was in jail, Surat police had claimed to have unearthed elaborate plans to bribe police officers, doctors, and even judicial officers to weaken the case against him.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback