2,292 convicts jumped bail in 2004-14

The shocking incident where Sajjad Mughal, the security guard who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Mumbai-based lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha, jumped parole has once again brought to the fore the issue of prisoners not surrendering before jail authorities after their release on parole or furlough. As per police records, in ten years more than 2,000 convicts went missing after they were released on parole or furlough.

Maharashtra is among the states that have the most instances of convicts jumping parole. National Crime Records Bureau data confirms that Maharashtra registered 2,292 parole-jumping cases between 2004 and 2014. A prison official said that the number of convicts who did not surrender after the period of parole ended last year is 50.

The issue of convicts not surrendering has been raised before the Bombay high court on several occasions, and during one such hearing the court on September 27, 2013 directed the government to form a committee comprising top government officials. This committee gave certain suggestions, including registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for offences punishable under Section 224 (resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension) of the Indian Penal Code. The Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 was later amended so that law-enforcing agencies could bring back convicts to prison to make them serve their remaining sentences.

As per the amendment, a FIR could be registered against the person who had not surrendered before jail authorities after expiry of leave for escaping from custody. However, Azam Butt, a convict serving a life term in Nashik jail, challenged this amendment. Butt was released on parole in 2014 and he failed to surrender before jail authorities in December 2014. Following this, he was declared absconding and an FIR was registered against him under Section 224.

Butt challenged the circular and amended provision of Rules on the ground that they are illegal and contrary to law. His lawyer N. Gavankar had argued that Section 224 is applicable only when person intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence. According to him, overstaying or not surrendering of prisoner on expiration of leave will not amount to the commission of an offence under Section 224.

The division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice V.L. Achliya, in their order dated April 5, 2016, however, held that the amendment is right. “We have come to conclusion that parolee is in legal custody of the state or its agents (even when he is released on parole or furlough) and his non-surrender to prison authorities after the expiry of the parole period amounts to escaping from legal custody within the meaning of Section 224,” said the bench. Following this decision, the state still has the option of registering an FIR against such persons.

Terminology explained Parole and furlough are granted only to a convict, and not to undertrial prisoners. The rules allow two types of leave for prisoners. The first is furlough, which is a matter of right, whereas parole is granted for family emergencies. Furlough leave is of 14 days, and can be extended by another 14 days. A convict can apply for parole for 30 days, for emergencies, such as illness or death of a family member. Parole can be extended by another 60 days.