HC lets lifer seeking furlough to see ailing mother file fresh plea; appellate authority to decide in 4 weeks
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court allowed a life convict to reapply for furlough to meet his ailing mother and directed a decision within four weeks.
Images are not validated/verified
Nagpur: A prisoner serving a life sentence, who sought furlough to meet his ailing mother, has got relief from the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. The court allowed Vishal Lanjewar to apply afresh for furlough and directed the appellate authority concerned to decide on it within four weeks.
A bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj Wakode passed the order while hearing Lanjewar's petition. The court clarified that furlough is not merely a means for a prisoner to step out of jail for some time. The bench noted that the arrangement also aims to let a prisoner stay in touch with the family, resolve problems at home, and find relief from the mental effects of continuous incarceration.
According to the details of the case, Lanjewar, who is serving a life term in the Nagpur Central Jail, had applied for furlough on January 14, 2026, to meet his ailing mother. He had asked to be allowed out of jail for some time, considering the need to meet his family.
However, the application was opposed on the basis of a police report. The report said Lanjewar had earlier gone out of jail on furlough but did not return on time. He had reached the jail 35 days after the stipulated deadline. A case had also been registered against him in that matter under Section 265 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
His furlough application was rejected on this ground. He then approached the appellate authority as well, but got no relief there either. Finally, he moved the High Court.
During the hearing, the Nagpur bench referred to an important judgment of the Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court. That judgment was delivered in the case of Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari versus State of Maharashtra. It examined the purpose of furlough and issues linked to prisoners' family lives. The Kolhapur bench had accepted that furlough is an opportunity for a prisoner to stay in touch with the family, resolve problems at home and keep hope alive about the future.
That judgment had also considered whether rules imposing a waiting period before further furlough on prisoners who return to jail late from furlough can be applied mechanically in every case without looking at the circumstances. Questions had arisen about the principles of natural justice and the rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution in relation to the waiting period prescribed under Rule 7(2). These provisions relate to equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty.
On examining the circumstances of the case, the Nagpur bench found that Lanjewar had made the earlier application before the prescribed period of one year was complete. However, that waiting period had lapsed by the time of the hearing. Keeping in mind the earlier Kolhapur bench judgment, the court therefore allowed him to apply afresh and said the appellate authority should take an appropriate decision on the new application within four weeks.
With this order, the High Court disposed of the petition. However, the order does not mean the prisoner has been given final permission to be released on furlough. The decision on the new application is to be taken by the authority concerned.
