A division bench of Justices A S Oka and S S Shinde was hearing a petition filed by one Aarif Baba Ayub Salar challenging an order passed in July this year by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons forfeiting his personal bond of Rs 15,000 for breach of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules.
As per Rule 10 (2) if the prisoner commits an offence while he is out on furlough or parole then his personal bond will be forfeited.
Salar, who was on furlough leave from July to August 2011, was named as an accused in a non cognisable offence in Solapur.
The High Court, however, observed that the police has to prove that the prisoner had committed the offence when he was out on furlough or parole.
"Only if it is proved that the person has committed an act punishable by any law for the time being in force it can be said that he committed an offence. Merely because an offence has been registered against the prisoner, it cannot be said that he has committed an offence punishable by or under any law in force in India," the division bench observed.
It further said that mere registration of an offence against the prisoner during the period on which he is released on furlough will not amount to breach of Rule 10 (2).
Quashing the forfeiture order, the High Court has left it open to the concerned authority to look into the issue again but directed them to follow the principles of natural justice.
"The authority should issue show case notice to the prisoner and give him an opportunity of being heard before passing order of forfeiture," the court said.
