Discretionary furlough under prison rules can be refused for public peace concerns and unsatisfactory custody conduct.

Furlough under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959 is a regulated discretionary release and not an absolute legal right, because the Rules use permissive language, set eligibility conditions, and expressly deny any enforceable entitlement. Refusal was also upheld where the competent authority had material suggesting a risk to public peace and tranquillity, including alleged threats to witnesses and officials, alleged attempts to influence persons connected with the case, and unsatisfactory conduct in custody. A prior furlough grant on different grounds did not prevent later refusal on fresh adverse material. The impugned grant was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a prisoner has an absolute legal right to be released on furlough under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959; (ii) Whether the respondent's furlough application could be ed on the ground of public peace and tranquillity and unsatisfactory conduct in custody.

Issue (i): Whether a prisoner has an absolute legal right to be released on furlough under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959.

Analysis: The Rules were framed under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894. Rule 3 uses the expression "may be released" and regulates eligibility by the length of sentence, while Rule 4 imposes disqualifications. Rule 17 expressly states that nothing in the Rules confers a legal right on a prisoner to claim furlough. Furlough is a regulated, discretionary release and not an entitlement as of right.

Conclusion: The prisoner has no absolute legal right to furlough; the grant of furlough remains discretionary and is controlled by the Rules.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's furlough application could be refused on the ground of public peace and tranquillity and unsatisfactory conduct in custody.

Analysis: The material before the authorities showed serious apprehension of disturbance to public peace, including threats to witnesses and officials, alleged attempts to suborn and bribe persons connected with the case, the respondent's mass following, and negative inputs from prison and police authorities. Rule 4 permits refusal where release is not recommended on grounds of public peace and tranquillity and where prison conduct is unsatisfactory. On the record, the authority's view was not shown to be perverse or extraneous to the Rules. The previous grant of furlough was based on a different ground and did not foreclose consideration of later objections.

Conclusion: The refusal of furlough was justified under the Rules and the High Court's contrary order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned grant of furlough was set aside and the State's challenge succeeded, leaving the respondent without the requested temporary release.

Ratio Decidendi: Furlough under the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules is a discretionary release, not an enforceable right, and it may be refused where the competent authority reasonably apprehends disturbance to public peace, law and order, or unsatisfactory prisoner conduct under the governing rules.

---