Breaking: Supreme Court Sets Aside Two Week furlough Granted By HC To Asaram Bapu's Son Narayan Sai, Convicted In Rape Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the grant of two weeks' furlough to self-proclaimed godman and rape convict Asaram's son Narayan Sai who is also serving life term in a 2014 rape case.The bench headed by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud was pronouncing the judgment on the state of Gujarat's SLP against the June order of the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court granting the respondent-convict furlough for a period of 2 weeks. The bench declared that furlough can be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served, without any reason. It was observed that the purpose for the same is to allow the prisoner to continue with family life and integration in the society. However, the bench added that while furlough can be claimed without a reason, a prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to furlough, that the interest of the prisoner in the grant of furlough has to be balanced against the public interest and furlough can be refused to certain categories of prisoners. In refusing furlough to Sai, the bench noted that the concerned Jail Superintendent has given a negative opinion based on the fact that the respondent kept a mobile phone in the jail illegally and tried to make contact with the outside world. The bench noted that there have been instances of threats issued to the investigating team and witnesses at the behest of the respondent, that during the trial, attempts were made to bribe public officials, and that the conduct of the respondent in the jail is also not beyond reproach. The bench noted that disturbance to public peace and tranquility are the grounds in the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959 for the refusal of furlough. "They have a mass following of persons who have loyalty to them. In view of these circumstances, we allow the appeals and set aside the interim judgment and order of the High Court", ruled the benchBackgroundThe bench had earlier recorded that the order was initially stayed for a period of 3 weeks, which stay was extended until August 13 at the request of the state and hence, the order has not been implemented as of date. On August 12, the bench of Justice Chandrachud had earlier stayed the grant of furlough.SG Tushar Mehta, for the petitioner-state, had submitted that as explained in the 2006 decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pandurang Darvakar's case, the grant of furlough is not a matter of right, as culled out from Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959, which are applicable in the state of Gujarat. The said Rule 17 states that there is no legal right to furlough and that is subject to certain conditions.He further submitted that clauses (4) and (6) of Rule 4 contemplate that furlough may be denied in case of prisoners whose release is not recommended by the Commissioner of Police or, as the case may be, by the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and tranquility, and prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of the Superintendent of the Prison, not satisfactory enough."In the present case, the respondent is convicted of the offences under section 376 read with section 34 of the IPC. The circumstances as regards public peace and tranquility associated with the release of the respondent are set out in the order of the state DGP. The respondent was released on furlough for a period of 2 weeks in December, 2020 on ground of the ill-health of his mother, and fairly, the state had adopted no adversarial approach on that occasion. In view of the antecedents of the respondent and the nature of crime and acts of intimidation of witnesses and the investigating officer, risk to law and order and public peace and tranquility is apprehended on his release now", recorded the bench.The bench orally noted that the respondent-convict's release on furlough in December, 2020 had been "uneventful", there being no problems in apprehending him post the expiry of the period allowed and no allegations that he did not surrender, and also that there is nothing on record that his release in December, 2020 witnessed any issues of law and order or public peace and tranquility. The bench noted that the Proviso to Rule 3(2) states that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on furlough every year after he completes seven years' actual imprisonment. The bench agreed to consider the SLP on the aspect whether the expression "every year" in the said Rule is to be understood as a calendar year or in the sense of the duration between the last release of the prisoner on furlough, being December, 2020 in the instance case."Considering the object and purpose of furlough, one is entitled to 15 days every year. Now, the respondent was released in December, 2020. Could he have asked for furlough in January this year also or the right accrues only in December? Your best ground would be whether furlough is to be granted once every calendar year or should one year have elapsed since the last release. This is what is weighing in our minds", said...

Breaking: Supreme Court Sets Aside Two Week furlough Granted By HC To Asaram Bapu's Son Narayan Sai, Convicted In Rape Case

Mehal Jain

Tags