The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld a prison rule that denies parole or furlough to persons convicted for dacoity and robbery.
Justices RMS Khandeparkar and Amjad Sayed dismissed a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 4 (2) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, that bars parole or furlough for those convicted under 11 sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Rule 4 covers sections 392 to 402 that deal with aggravated forms of robbery.
Parole and furlough are granted to convicts to enable them to maintain continuity with their families and deal with family matters. They are allowed to visit their homes for short periods, which are counted as days spent in jail.
Babasaheb Gawade and others convicted for robbery and dacoity had filed petitions after their applications for furlough were rejected by jail authorities stating that they would endanger peace in society if released from jail. Their petitions alleged that the prison rule was discriminatory, as persons convicted for graver offences like murder, rape and kidnapping were allowed to go home on parole or furlough.
Public prosecutors Satish Borulkar and PS Hingorani had opposed the petitions saying if persons convicted for robbery or dacoity are released, they could pose a threat to society.
The petitioners pointed out that Rule 4(2) was framed during the British era. The petitioners also argued that these days punishment is reformative in nature and curbs like Rule 4(2) is a blow to the reformation process of the convicts.
