Holding

Furlough is a discretionary relief, not a legal right, and the DGP’s refusal under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules was proper.

Summary

The respondent, convicted of multiple serious offences including rape and assault, applied for furlough under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules. The Director General of Police (DGP) rejected the application, citing the respondent's criminal conduct, threats to witnesses, illegal activities in jail, and the risk to public peace, invoking Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10). The High Court had earlier allowed the furlough, treating it as a matter of right, but the Supreme Court examined whether the Rules confer such a right and whether the DGP’s discretion was valid. The Court held that the Rules do not create an absolute legal right to furlough; the grant is discretionary and must be balanced against public interest, especially for prisoners with a propensity for violence. Consequently, the Court found the DGP’s order reasonable and set aside the High Court’s decision, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

The Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules do not confer a legal right on a prisoner to be released on furlough.
Whether the DGP’s denial of furlough under Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) is valid in the facts of the case.
Whether the High Court erred in treating furlough as a matter of right and in overlooking the objections of the sanctioning authorities.
The interpretation of Rule 3(2) regarding the frequency of furlough for life‑imprisoned prisoners.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 354, s. 376(2)(c), s. 377, s. 504, s. 506(2), s. 508
Prisons Act, 1894s. 59(28), s. 59(5)

Subjects

furloughparoleprison lawpublic peacediscretionary reliefSection 482 CrPCBombay Furlough and Parole Ruleswitness protectioncriminal conviction

Judgment

330 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 330 [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
v.
NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ MOTA BHAGWAN
ASARAM @ ASUMAL HARPALANI
B (Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2021)
OCTOBER 20, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules: Release on furlough –
C
Respondent was convicted under ss.376(2)(c), 377, 354, 504,
506(2), 508 of the IPC – By order dated 8 May 2021, application
for furlough was rejected by the Sanctioning Authority on the ground
that the respondent had engaged in illegal activities inside the jail,
including keeping a mobile phone and making contacts outside the
D jail; has engaged in criminal misconduct to hinder the judicial
proceedings during trial by threatening, assaulting and murdering
witnesses; and that in case the respondent is released on furlough,
the lives of the witnesses in the original trial would be under threat
– Respondent successfully filed petition under s.482 CrPC for
setting aside order dated 8 May 2021 – Aggrieved State filed instant
E
appeal – Held: r.4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of furlough
on grounds of disturbance to public peace and tranquility – Order
dated 8 May 2021 has adduced a number of circumstances which
cumulatively indicated that the release of the respondent on
furlough may lead to a violation of public peace – The order referred
F specifically to the threat he and his followers posed to the
complainant and other persons who deposed at the trial – An attempt
was made to threaten and suborn the investigating team and the
witnesses – Respondent and his father have a mass following of
persons who owe loyalty to them and there was a reasonable
apprehension of a disruption of public peace and tranquillity –
G
During the trial, attempts were made to bribe public officials – The
conduct after the trial, in jail, was not shown to be above reproach
– Thus, the opinion of the Sanctioning Authority under the Rules
did not suffer from perversity nor did it consider material extraneous
to the Rules governing the grant of furlough.
H
330
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 331
MOTA BHAGWAN

Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules: rr.3, 4, 17 – Right of A
prisoner to furlough – Held: rr.3,4 and 17 do not confer a legal
right on a prisoner to be released on furlough. The grant of furlough
is regulated by r.3 and r.4 – While r.3 provides the eligibility criteria
for grant of furlough for prisoners serving different lengths of
imprisonment, r.4 imposes limitations – The use of the expression
B
“may be released” in r.3 indicates the absence of an absolute right
– This is further emphasised in r.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 rr.3 and 4.
Furlough and parole – Distinction between – Held: Furlough C
and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody –
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 – The grant of furlough is to break
the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain D
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 – The grant of
furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be
refused to certain categories of prisoners.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From a reading of Rules 3, 4 and 17 of the Bombay
Furlough and Parole Rules, these Rules do not confer a legal
right on a prisoner to be released on furlough. The grant of
furlough is regulated by Rule 3 and Rule 4. While Rule 3 provides F
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 G
release on furlough is a discretionary remedy circumscribed by
Rules 3 and 4. [Para 15][346-A-C]
2. The principles may be formulated in broad, general terms
bearing in mind the caveat that the governing rules for parole
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A and furlough have to be applied in each context. The principles
are thus: Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary
release from custody; 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;
The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment
B
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; The grant of furlough must be balanced
against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories
C of prisoners. [Para 20][350-C]
3. The furlough application of the respondent was rejected
by the DGP by an order dated 8 May 2021. The DGP relied on
the concurrent opinion of the ACP, DCP and Jail Superintendent
to deny the grant of furlough, based on the following
D circumstances: the gravity of the offences that the respondent
has been convicted of, including, Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 354,
504, 506(2), 508 of the IPC; the criminal misconduct of the
respondent, during the trial, including attempts to bribe public
officials; threatening, assaulting and murdering of witnesses by
followers of the respondent; threatening police officials and
E inspectors of the Income Tax Department; mass following of the
respondent willing to commit offences at the instance of the
respondent; and illegal activities while in custody, such as keeping
a mobile phone and attempting to establish contact with outsiders.
[Para 21][350-G-H; 351-A-C]
F 4. The DGP has invoked Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) of the
Rules to dismiss the furlough leave application. Rule 4(4) of the
Rules provides that prisoners whose release is not recommended
by the Commissioner of Police on grounds of public peace and
tranquillity may not be considered eligible for furlough. Rule 4(6)
G provides for rejection of furlough leave where the conduct of the
prisoner is not satisfactory and Rule 4(10) provides that prisoners
who have escaped, or attempted to escape from lawful custody
or have defaulted in surrendering, may not be eligible for furlough.
The record does not show that the respondent has made any

H
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 333
MOTA BHAGWAN

efforts to escape from lawful custody. After the grant of furlough A
in December 2020 and interim bail from 31 January 2021 till 3
February 2021, the respondent surrendered to the authorities.
Thus, Rule 4(10) of the Rules cannot be relied upon to refuse
furlough leave to the respondent. [Paras 23, 24][351-E-G]
5. Turning now to Rule 4(6) of the Rules, the Jail B
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. Rule
4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of furlough on grounds of
disturbance to public peace and tranquillity. The order dated 8
May 2021 has adduced a number of circumstances which C
cumulatively indicate that the release of the respondent on
furlough may lead to a violation of public peace. The 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 D
team and the witnesses. The respondent and his father have a
mass following of persons who owe loyalty to them and there is a
reasonable apprehension of a disruption of public peace and
tranquillity. During the trial, attempts have been made to bribe
public officials. The conduct after the trial, in jail, has not been
shown to be above reproach. The respondent was released earlier E
this year to accommodate a genuine need to attend to his mother’s
health at the relevant time. The submission that the objections
mentioned in the order dated 8 May 2021 were raised by the
authorities to the grant of furlough in December 2020 in spite of
which the High Court allowed the plea for furlough is meritless. F
The previous order of the High Court did not deal with these
submissions. The order only referred to the fact that the
respondent’s mother was suffering on account of a cardiac arrest
and granted furlough on this basis. 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 G
grant of furlough. [Paras 25, 26][351-H; 352-A-F]
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar
(2006) 4 SCC 776 : [2006] 3 SCR 1128 ; Asfaq v. State

H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55 : [2017] 11 SCR 571;
State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394
: [2000] 1 SCR 698 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 1128 referred to para 10 (iv) and 16
B
[2017] 11 SCR 571 referred to paras 10 and 19
[2000] 1 SCR 698 referred to para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1159 of 2021.
C From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2021 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Criminal Application No.5199 of
2021.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Kanu Agrawal, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advs.
for the Appellants.
D Sanjiv Punalekar, Suvidutt M. S., Ankush Mahajan, Dharma Raj,
Mrs. Anu B., Ms. Vijayalakshmi Raju, Mrs. Dhanya C., Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
E
1. The appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat dated 24 June 2021. The Single Judge directed
the release of the respondent on furlough.
A Factual Background
F 2. An FIR, C.R. No. I-31/2013, was registered against the
respondent on 6 October 2013 at Jahangirpura Police Station for offences
under Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 354, 344, 357, 342, 323, 504, 506(2), 120-
B, 212, 153 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code 18601. Charges were
framed. On the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court by a judgment
dated 30 April 2019 convicted the respondent.The conviction and sentence
G
are summarised below:
(i) Section 376(2): life imprisonment together with a fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of one
year;

H 1
“IPC”
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 335
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(ii) Section 377: life imprisonment together with a fine of A
Rs. 1,00,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of one
year;
(iii) Section 354: three years’ rigorous imprisonment together
with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default, simple
imprisonment of six months; B
(iv) Section 504: one year’s rigorous imprisonment together with
a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default simple imprisonment of
three months;
(v) Section 506(2): three years’ rigorous imprisonment together
with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment C
of one month;
(vi) Section 508: one year’s rigorous imprisonment together with
a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of
one month;
(vii) Section 323: six months’ rigorous imprisonment together with D
a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, simple imprisonment of
one month;
The respondent was directed to pay compensation of
Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, to the prosecutrix. All sentences were
E
directed to run concurrently.
3. The respondent was released on temporary bail for a period of
three weeks on 16 April 2015 and for a period of two days on 15 February
2019. The respondent was granted furlough from 5 December 2020 for
a period of fourteen days by the order of the High Court dated 2 December
2020. Due to the ill-health of his mother, the respondent was released on F
temporary bail from 31 January 2021 to 3 February 2021.
4. On 17 March 2021, the respondent filed an application2 for
furlough through the Surat Lajpore Central Jail. The application was
rejected by the Director General of Police, Jail and Reformative
Administration3 on 8 May 2021. The DGP dismissed the application G
because:
(i) The Jail Superintendent had given a negative opinion on the
furlough application as the respondent had engaged in illegal
2
Judicial/Furlough/1194/201
3
“DGP” H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A activities inside the jail, including keeping a mobile phone
and making contacts outside the jail;
(ii) The respondent if released on furlough may violate law and
order;
(iii) The opinion of the Assistant Commissioner of Police4 was
B sought on the grant of furlough and he had raised objections
for the following reasons:
(a) During the investigation of the offence, the Deputy
Commissioner of Police5, had guided a team to arrest
the respondent and had disclosed her official cell
C phone details to the media to solicit information from
the public regarding the whereabouts of the
respondent. On 16 October 2013 and 18 October
2013, the DCP received phone calls from a person
claiming to be a ‘sadhak’ of the respondent,
D threatening to kill the DCP if she continued to search
for the respondent. On investigation, it was revealed
that he was a resident of Madhya Pradesh and an
FIR was registered against him;
(b) The administrator of the ashram in Surat visited the
E respondent and the respondent gave a chit to him in
his handwriting for giving a bribe of Rs. 1 crore. The
administrator of the ashram and others gave a bribe
to the police officers, medical officers and judicial
officers to weaken the case against the respondent.
An FIR against these persons was registered. In case
F the respondent is released on furlough, he may
continue such offensive acts;
(c) In order to break the morale of the complainant, her
husband, who was a witness in the trial, was assaulted
with a lethal weapon on 28 February 2014. A
G complaint, ICR No. 50/2014, was registered under
Sections 307 and 188 of the IPC against persons
connected with the respondent. While these persons
have been arrested, they continue to attract a huge
4
“ACP”
H 5
“DCP”
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 337
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

crowd of followers in India and may commit offensive A
acts in the future. The respondent may also threaten
the husband of the complainant or other witnesses if
he is released on furlough;
(d) A complaint, ICR No. 31/2014, was registered under
Sections 324 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of B
the Gujarat Police Act 1951, against two unknown
persons for assaulting and injuring one Rakesh
Jayantilal Patel, a witness in the Asaram case, on 10
March 2014 on his head with a weapon;
(e) A complaint, ICR No. 69/2014, was registered under C
Sections 307, 326(A), and 114 of the IPC against
two persons who claimed to be sadhaks of Asaram
for assaulting and injuring one Dinesh Bhagchandani,
a witness in the Asaram case, on 16 March 2014 by
throwing acid on him and attempting to murder him;
D
(f) A complaint, ICR No. 133/2014, was registered under
Sections 307 of the IPC, Sections 25(1)(A)(B) and
27 of the Arms Act 1959, and Section 135(1) of the
Gujarat Police Act 1951, against one unknown person
for assaulting and injuring one Amrut Prajapati, a
witness in the Asaram case, on 23 May 2014 by firing E
a revolver with the intention of causing death. The
witness suffered severe injury and died during
treatment;
(g) The offences against the witnesses in Asaram’s case
and in the respondent’s case were committed by one F
Pravin Vakil. The offences against these witnesses
increased after this accused visited the respondent
in jail on 15 February 2014. Thus, there is a possibility
of the involvement of the respondent in the
commission of these offences;
G
(h) An FIR, CR No. 243/2015, was registered under
Sections 307, 452, 120B, and 34 of the IPC and Section
25(1)(a) of the Arms Act 1959, for assaulting one
Mahendra Chavala, a witness in the case against the
respondent. The respondent was passively involved
in the said incident; and H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A (i) In connection with the investigation of the case against
the respondent, 42 bags were seized from the flat of
asadhak. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court,
the bags were handed over to the Income Tax
Department. A raid was conducted by the Income
Tax Department on sadhaks staying across
B
thecountry and crores of rupees worth of properties
had been seized. Most of these investments were on
behalf of the respondent and his father, Asaram.
During the investigation, an Inspector was threatened
of being murdered and a complaint was lodged;
C (iv) The present DCP agreed with the above opinion of the ACP.
Given the conduct of the respondent, his criminal network
and his followers, the DCP objected to the grant of furlough
to him;
(v) The respondent was granted furlough in December 2020
D on account of his ailing mother. The furlough was granted
with the permission of the High Court; and
(vi) The first furlough leave application of the respondent was
dismissed in 2019. In response to the said application as
well, the ACP had given a negative opinion to not grant
E furlough, which was corroborated by the then DCP. The
reasons for rejecting the first furlough leave application are
the same as those produced above.
5. Based on the above opinion, the DGP rejected the grant of
furlough for the following reasons:
F
(i) The respondent is accused of high profile cases of rape
and atrocities punishable under provisions of Sections
376(2)(c), 377, 354, 504, 506(2), 508 of the IPC;
(ii) The opinions of the ACP and DCP indicate that in addition
to the main offence, the respondent has engaged in criminal
G
misconduct to hinder the judicial proceedings during trial by
threatening, assaulting and murdering witnesses;
(iii) frequent assaults on witnesseshave been registered against
the followers of the respondent and seven offences have
been registered against him;
H
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 339
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(iv) one of these seven offences is being supervised by an IPS A
officer, Shoba Bhutada, who has been threatened by the
followers of the respondent;
(v) the respondent is not a normal prisoner who may be
considered for grant of furlough. He has a group of
thousands of head strong followers, spanning across the B
country who are willing to commit offences at the instance
of the respondent;
(vi) in case the respondent is released on furlough, the lives of
the witnesses in the original trial will be under threat. The
respondent may interrupt the judicial proceedings for C
prosecution of the seven offences pending against him; and
(vii) the respondent is engaged in dangerous activities of
organized crime and has a network of persons and a financial
background.
6. The respondent moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC D
for setting aside the order dated 8 May 2021. The respondent relied on
the proviso to Rule 3(2) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
19596 and urged that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be
released on furlough every year instead of every two years, after he
completes seven years of imprisonment. It was also submitted that
E
furlough leave is granted as a matter of right.
7. Allowing the application of the respondent, the Single Judge of
the High Court held that:
(i) The reasons furnished by the DGP for denying furlough
were considered by the High Court in its previous order F
dated 2 December 2020, pursuant to which the respondent
was released on furlough for a period of two weeks;
(ii) No untoward incident took place after the respondent was
released in December 2020 and the respondent did not
misuse the liberty granted to him during the period of
G
furlough;
(iii) Although the respondent was involved in criminal activities
earlier, no illegal activity has been reported since the
respondent was released in December 2020;
6
“Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules” or “Rules” H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A (iv) The reasons furnished by the DGP have already been
considered by the High Court and are not reasonable or
justified;
(v) The respondent has been under imprisonment for a period
of seven and a half years. Under the Bombay Furlough and
B Parole Rules, he is entitled for furlough leave once every
year.
8. Based on the above reasons, the Single Judge allowed the
respondent to be released on furlough leave with police escort for a
period of fourteen days from the date of his release on the execution of
C a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Jail Authority and other
conditions that the authority may deem fit. The respondent was to reside
at the residence of his mother in Ahmedabad and was directed to surrender
on the expiry of his leave. On the request of the Additional Public
Prosecutor, the Single Judge of the High Court stayed the impugned
order for a period of three weeks. By an order dated 6 August 2021, the
D implementation of the impugned order was stayed until 13 August 2021.
9. A Special Leave Petition7 was filed by the State of Gujarat
against this order. On 12 August 2021, a bench comprising of one of us,
(Justice DY Chandrachud) and Justice MR Shah stayed the
implementation of the order of the High Court.
E
B Rival Submissions
10. Assailing the order of the High Court, Mr Tushar Mehta,
Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat, has made
the following submissions:
F (i) Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules
indicate that furlough cannot be allowed mechanically as a
matter of right. Rule 3 creates an option for the prisoner to
be released on furlough and the said Rule is subject to Rule
4;
G (ii) Under sub-Rules 4, 6 and 10 of Rule 4 of the Bombay
Furlough and Parole Rules, prisoners whose release is not
recommended by the Commissioner of Police or the District
Magistrate on grounds of public peace and tranquility;
prisoners whose conduct is not satisfactory in the opinion
7
H SLP (Crl.) No. 5699 of 2021
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 341
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of Superintendent of the Prison; and prisoners who have A
escaped or attempted to escape from custody or have
defaulted in surrendering after release on parole or furlough,
shall not be considered for release on furlough;
(iii) Rule 17 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules provides
that the Rules do not confer a legal right on the prisoner to B
claim release on furlough;
(iv) In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar8
this Court has held that furlough can be refused in cases
where there are concerns of public peace and tranquility;
(v) Furlough can be denied if it is not in the interest of the C
society as held in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan9;
(vi) The facts of the case indicate the gross nature of crime,
which disentitles the respondent to any discretionary relief.
The DGP has noted that the respondent had attempted to
bribe public officials; caused injury to the husband of the D
complainant and other witnesses; threatened to murder
police inspectors and an inspector of the Income Tax
Department; and attempted to derail the judicial process;
(vii) The reliance placed by the High Court on its previous order
dated 2 December 2020 is misplaced as the order did not E
deal with the objections of the authorities on denial of
furlough. The grant of furlough under Rule 3 is subject to
Rule 4 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules which
accords weight to the opinion of the authorities for grant of
furlough. Unless this subjective satisfaction of the
authorities, which is susceptible to judicial review, is taken F
away, furlough cannot be granted. The High Court has,
neither in its previous order dated 2 December 2020 nor in
the impugned order, made any observation on the
correctness of the objections of the authorities against the
grant of furlough; and G
(viii) The purpose of furlough is to enable the prisoner to meet
family needs and to maintain a connection with society. Even
if it is accepted that the prisoner is entitled to a furlough of
8
(2006) 4 SCC 776
9
(2017) 15 SCC 55 H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A fourteen days in a year after serving a sentence of seven
years, in this case the respondent was granted furlough on
2 December 2020 and was granted interim bail from 31
January 2021 to 3 February 2021. Thus, the respondent
cannot be granted furlough again in the month of July 2021.
B 11. Opposing the submissions of the Solicitor General, Mr Sanjiv
Punalekar, counsel for the respondent, urged that:
(i) On 5 May 2021, the father of the respondent, Asaram Bapu,
tested positive for COVID-19 and is suffering from multiple
colonic diverticulosis gastrointestinal bleeding. On 16
C February 2021, the respondent’s father was admitted to the
hospital, where it was found that he had an attack of unstable
angina or acute coronary syndrome. The respondent’s father
is suffering from 11 major chronic ailments and suffered
from septic shock and pulmonary embolism in June 2021;
(ii) There is no family member around the respondent’s father
D
and his condition is critical.The respondent is the only son
of his father. The respondent’s mother is also severely ill
and is being taken care of by her daughter. Thus, the
respondent is required to be released on furlough to take
care of his father’s medical care and treatment;
E (iii) The appeal against the respondent’s conviction and the
application for suspension of sentence are pending for
hearing before the High Court;
(iv) The respondent has been released on temporary bail and
furlough leave on four occasions and no untoward incident
F was reported during his release;
(v) The furlough leave is a matter of right and is granted
periodically to prisoners to continue their association with
their families;
(vi) Apart from the present case, the respondent is an accused
G in two criminal cases and has been granted bail in both the
cases;
(vii) With respect to the other offences mentioned in the order
dated 8 May 2021, the respondent is not associated with
the attacks, his name has not been mentioned in the FIRs
H and there is no proof to show that the respondent is
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 343
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

connected to the accused in those cases. Since he has A
already been convicted, there is no question of threatening
the witnesses;
(viii) The infractions referred to by the Superintendent of Prison
to the grant of furlough to the respondent are minor and
have no nexus to respondent’s behaviour once he is released B
on furlough;
(ix) The difference between grant of furlough and parole is that
furlough is granted to prisoners after they have undergone
a specified period of sentence, parole is a conditional
temporary release on ground of good conduct for a C
situational relief; and
(x) Rule 3(2) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules provides
that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may be
released on furlough “every year” after he completes seven
years of imprisonment. The phrase “every year” must be
D
interpreted to mean every calendar year.
12. Having adverted to the rival submissions of the parties, we
shall now address the issue at hand.
C Analysis
13. The Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules were made pursuant E
to Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894 and are applicable in the State of
Gujarat. Under sub-Section 5 of Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894, the
State Government may make rules for the award of marks and shortening
of sentences. Sub-Section 28 of Section 59 also grants power to the
State Governments to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the
Act. F

14. Rule 3 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules provides for
the grant of furlough to prisoners and reads as follows:
“3. When Prisoner may be granted furlough.
(1) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period G
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 of
actual imprisonment undergone.
(2) A Prisoner, who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period
exceeding five years may be released on furlough for a
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A period of two weeks at a time for 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
B five years of his unexpired period of sentence:
Provided further 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.
C Note 1: The period of imprisonment in this rule includes the
sentence or sentences awarded in lieu of fine in case the amount
of fine is not paid.
Provided that if fine is paid during the period of imprisonment and
the total sentence is reduced to a term not exceeding 5 years he
D shall thereafter be eligible for release in accordance with sub-rule
(1) instead of every two years under sub-rule (2).
Note 2: For the purposes of this rule, the period of imprisonment
shall be computed as the total period for which a prisoner is
sentenced even though one or more sentences be concurrent.
E Note 3: If at any time a prisoner who could have been granted
furlough is either not granted or is refused the same the period for
which he could have been granted the furlough shall not be carried
forward but shall lapse.
Note 4: The period of two weeks may be initially extended up to
F three weeks in the case of prisoners desiring to spend the furlough
outside the State of Bombay.
Note 5: An order sanctioning the release of a prisoner on furlough
shall cease to be valid if not given effect within a period of two
months of the date thereof.”
(emphasis supplied)
G
Rule 4 further stipulates the conditions when furlough shall not be
granted:
“4. When prisoners shall not be granted furlough.-
The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for
H release on furlough:-
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 345
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(1) Habitual prisoners. A
(2) Prisoners convicted of offenses under sections 392 to 402
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code.
(3) Prisoners convicted of offence under the Bombay Prohibition
Act, 1949
B
(4) Prisoners whose release is not recommended in Great
Bombay by the Commissioner of Police and elsewhere, the
District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and
tranquility.
(5) Prisoners who, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the C
prison show a tendency towards crime.
(6) Prisoners whose conduct is in the opinion of
Superintendent of the Prison, not satisfactory enough.
(7) Prisoners confined in the Ratnagiri Special Prison [other than
prisoners transferred to that prison for jail services.] D
(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 E
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 on furlough. F

(11) Prisoners convicted of offences under the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.”
(emphasis supplied)
Rule 17 of the Rules clarifies the nature of the grant of furlough: G
“Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a
legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough.”
(emphasis supplied)
H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 15. From a reading of the above provisions it is evident that the
Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules do not confer a legal right on a
prisoner to be released on furlough. The grant of furlough is regulated
by Rule 3 and Rule 4. 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”
B
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
extracted above.
C 16. The applicability of these Rules was considered by a two
judge Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang
Darvakar10. Justice Arijit Pasayat, speaking for the Bench held that:
“5. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the High
Court has not kept in view Rules 4(4) and 6 of the Prisons (Bombay
D 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
E (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
F 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
G conditions mentioned in Rules 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 have family association,
family and social ties and to avoid ill-effect of continuous prison
life. Period of furlough is treated as a period spent in the prison.
10
H (2006) 4 SCC 776
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 347
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

But Rule 20 shows that period spent on parole is not to be counted A
as remission of sentence. Since the furlough is granted for no
particular reason, it can be denied in the interest of society;
whereas parole is to be granted only on sufficient cause
being shown.
[…] B
7. A bare reading of Rule 4(4) indicates that release can be
refused when the same is not recommended by the
Commissioner of Police in Greater Bombay and elsewhere,
by the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace
and tranquillity.” C
(emphasis supplied)
17. In Suresh Darvakar (supra), the Court distinguished parole
from furlough. While both parole and furlough are temporary releases
from confinement, parole is granted only for a specific purpose. A prisoner
is entitled to apply for furlough once he has served the minimum years D
of sentence as stipulated in Rule 3.
18. The difference between bail, furlough and parole was also
considered by a two-judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v.
Mohinder Singh11. Justice DP Wadhwa, referring to the Haryana Good
Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1988 and the Punjab Good E
Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962, observed that
“17. ”Furlough” and “parole” are two distinct terms now being
used in the Jail Manuals or laws relating to temporary release of
prisoners. These two terms have acquired different meanings in
the statute with varied results. Dictionary meanings, therefore, F
are not quite helpful. In this connection we may refer to the
Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988
which has repealed the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners
(Temporary Release) Act, 1962. The Punjab Act was earlier
applicable in the State of Haryana. The language of both the Acts
is same and it may be useful to refer to Sections 3 and 4 of any of G
these two Acts to understand the difference between parole and
furlough:
[…]

11
(2000) 3 SCC 394 H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 18. It would be thus seen that when a prisoner is on parole his
period of release does not count towards the total period of
sentence while when he is on furlough he is eligible to have the
period of release counted towards the total period of his sentence
undergone by him.”
B 19. In Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan12, Justice AK Sikri, speaking
for the two-judge Bench observed that:
“11. There is a subtle distinction between parole and furlough. A
parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners i.e. an
early release of a prisoner, conditional on good behaviour and
C regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It can
also be defined as a form of conditional pardon by which the
convict is released before the expiration of his term. Thus, the
parole is granted for good behaviour on the condition that parolee
regularly reports to a supervising officer for a specified period.
Such a release of the prisoner on parole can also be temporarily
D on some basic grounds. In that eventuality, it is to be treated as
mere suspension of the sentence for time being, keeping the
quantum of sentence intact. Release on parole is designed to afford
some relief to the prisoners in certain specified exigencies.
[…]
E
14. Furlough, on the other hand, is a brief release from the prison.
It is conditional and is given in case of long-term imprisonment.
The period of sentence spent on furlough by the prisoners need
not be undergone by him as is done in the case of parole. Furlough
is granted as a good conduct remission.”
F
Summarising the difference between parole and furlough, the Court
noted that
“16. […]
(i) Both parole and furlough are conditional release.
G (ii) Parole can be granted in case of short-term imprisonment
whereas in furlough it is granted in case of long-term imprisonment.
(iii) Duration of parole extends to one month whereas in the case
of furlough it extends to fourteen days maximum.

H 12
(2017) 15 SCC 55
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 349
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(iv) Parole is granted by Divisional Commissioner and furlough is A
granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.
(v) For parole, specific reason is required, whereas furlough is
meant for breaking the monotony of imprisonment.
(vi) The term of imprisonment is not included in the computation
of the term of parole, whereas it is vice versa in furlough. B

(vii) Parole can be granted number of times whereas there is
limitation in the case of furlough.
(viii) Since furlough is not granted for any particular reason, it
can be denied in the interest of the society. C
(See State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar
[State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, (2006)
4 SCC 776 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 411] and State of
Haryana v. Mohinder Singh [State of Haryana v. Mohinder
Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 645] .) D
After noting the purpose of parole on the one hand and furlough
on the other, the Court indicated the need fora balance to be maintained
between two competing interests while granting parole or furlough- that
of reforming the convict on one hand and the public purpose and interests
of society on the other:
E
“19. Having noted the aforesaid public purpose in granting parole
or furlough, ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing, other
competing public interest has also to be kept in mind while deciding
as to whether in a particular case parole or furlough is to be granted
or not. This public interest also demands that those who are
F
habitual offenders and may have the tendency to commit
the crime again after their release on parole or have the
tendency to become a threat to the law and order of the
society, should not be released on parole. This aspect takes
care of other objectives of sentencing, namely, deterrence and
prevention. This side of the coin is the experience that great number G
of crimes are committed by the offenders who have been put
back in the street after conviction. Therefore, while deciding as
to whether a particular prisoner deserves to be released on parole
or not, the aforesaid aspects have also to be kept in mind. To put
it tersely, the authorities are supposed to address the question as
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A to whether the convict is such a person who has the tendency to
commit such a crime or he is showing tendency to reform himself
to become a good citizen.
20. Thus, not all people in prison are appropriate for grant of
furlough or parole. Obviously, society must isolate those who show
B patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought to
encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to
reconcile with society and whose behaviour shows that they aspire
to live as law-abiding citizens. Thus, parole programme should be
used as a tool to shape such adjustments.”
C (emphasis supplied)
20. The principles may be formulated in broad, general terms
bearing in mind the caveat that the governing rules for parole and furlough
have to be applied in each context. The principles are thus:
(i) Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release
D from custody;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of
E
imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity
with family life and integration withsociety;
(iv) Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the
prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim
furlough;
F
(v) The grant of furlough must be balanced against the public
interest and can be refused to certain categories of
prisoners.
21. The furlough application of the respondent was rejected by
G the DGP by an order dated 8 May 2021. The DGP relied on the
concurrent opinion of the ACP, DCP and Jail Superintendent to deny the
grant of furlough, based on the following circumstances:
(i) the gravity of the offences that the respondent has been
convicted of, including, Sections 376(2)(c), 377, 354, 504,
H 506(2), 508 of the IPC;
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. v. NARAYAN @ NARAYAN SAI @ 351
MOTA BHAGWAN [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(ii) the criminal misconduct of the respondent, during the trial, A
including attempts to bribe public officials; threatening,
assaulting and murdering of witnesses by followers of the
respondent; threatening police officials and inspectors of
the Income Tax Department;
(iii) mass following of the respondent willing to commit offences B
at the instance of the respondent; and
(iv) illegal activities while in custody, such as keeping a mobile
phone and attempting to establish contact with outsiders.
22. These allegations have been refuted by the respondent on the
ground that apart from the present case, he is accused in two other C
offences in which he has been granted bail. It has been urged that in the
offences relating to intimidation and injury to the witnesses mentioned in
the order dated 8 May 2021, the police has not charged him and he was
not involved in any manner. It has been urged that even otherwise, these
offences occurred prior to 2016, after which there have been no D
complaints against or in relation to the respondent. The respondent has
laid emphasis on the fact that when he was granted furlough in December
2020, he did not violate the conditions of furlough, nor was there any
disruption of law and order.
23. The DGP has invoked Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10)of the Rules E
to dismiss the furlough leave application. Rule 4(4) of the Rules provides
that prisoners whose release is not recommended by the Commissioner
of Police on grounds of public peace and tranquillity may not be considered
eligible for furlough. Rule 4(6) provides for rejection of furlough leave
where the conduct of the prisoner is not satisfactory and Rule 4(10)
provides that prisoners who have escaped, or attempted to escape from F
lawful custody or have defaulted in surrendering, may not be eligible for
furlough.
24. The record does not show that the respondent has made any
efforts to escape from lawful custody. After the grant of furlough in
December 2020 and interim bail from 31 January 2021 till 3 February G
2021, the respondent surrendered to the authorities. Thus, Rule 4(10) of
the Rules cannot be relied upon to refuse furlough leave to the respondent.
25. Turning now to Rule 4(6) of the Rules, 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 H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A with the outside world. Rule 4(4) of the Rules provides for denial of
furlough on grounds of disturbance to public peace and tranquillity. The
order dated 8 May 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. The order refers specifically to the
threat he and his followers pose to the complainant and other persons
B
who deposed at the trial. An attempt has been made to threaten and
suborn the investigating team and the witnesses. The respondent and his
father have a mass following of persons who owe loyalty to them and
there is a reasonable apprehension of a disruption of public peace and
tranquillity. During the trial, attempts have been made to bribe public
C officials. 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.
D 26. It has been urged that the objections mentioned in the order
dated 8 May 2021 were raised by the authorities to the grant of furlough
in December 2020 in spite of which the High Court allowed the plea for
furlough. We do not find merit in this submission. The previous order of
the High Court did not deal with these submissions. The order only
referred to the fact that the respondent’s mother was suffering on account
E of a cardiac arrest and granted furlough on this basis. The Solicitor General
in fact stated that the earlier proceedings were not contested before the
High Court since the ground for furlough then was the ill-health of the
mother of the respondent. The opinion of the Sanctioning Authority under
the Rules does not suffer from perversity nor does it consider material
F extraneous to the Rules governing the grant of furlough.
27. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 24 June 2021.
28. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.

G
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.

H