The bar for furlough under Rule 4(2)(b) does not operate if pending cases are bailable or bail has been granted.

The Petitioner, a convict serving a life sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC, sought release on furlough leave.

His initial application was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Prisons on February 24, 2026, because he had previously failed to surrender on time (January 29, 2024) and was arrested a month later; under prison rules, he was ineligible for furlough for two years following such an arrest.

Upon appeal, the Appellate Authority noted that while the two-year bar had expired by April 17, 2026, the application should still be rejected under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Prisons Rules, 2024, citing two pending criminal cases against the Petitioner where bail was allegedly rejected.

1. Whether the Petitioner was disqualified from furlough under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, due to pending criminal cases.

2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in its factual finding regarding the rejection of the Petitioner’s bail in the pending matters.

The Court primarily applied the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, specifically Rule 4(2)(b), which stipulates that prisoners with multiple criminal cases against them are ineligible for furlough if their bail has been rejected in any one of those cases.

The Court also referenced Rule 7 of Chapter II, which prescribes the standard duration of furlough leave as 28 days.

The Court examined the two pending cases cited by the Appellate Authority to determine if the bar under Rule 4(2)(b) applied. Regarding C.R. No. 225 of 2024, the Court found that the Petitioner had actually been granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on August 26, 2025, contradicting the Authority's claim of rejection.

Regarding C.R. No. 123 of 2024 (under Section 224 IPC), the Court noted the offence is bailable by nature; hence, no bail application had been filed or rejected.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the legal prerequisite for disqualification—the rejection of a bail application—did not exist in either case.

Since the original two-year bar for the previous late surrender had also lapsed, there remained no legal impediment to his leave.

The High Court set aside the DIG’s order dated February 24, 2026, and the Appellate Authority’s order dated April 17, 2026.

The Court ordered that the Petitioner be released on furlough for 28 days, directing the Respondent No. 2 (DIG Prisons) to finalize the specific conditions of release within 15 days.

Rule was made absolute.