SHAH, J. :-, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER who is a convict for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code has filed this application for releasing him on furlough as the I. G. , Prisons has rejected his furlough application by order dated 24-12-1988. ( 2 ) IT is his say that he is convicted for the offence of killing his own sister in heat of anger because she refused to give up her illicit relationship with a Muslim person. It is his further say that he was not having any enemy and since 31/2 years he is in jail and he not enjoyed any parole or furlough. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the I. G. , Prisons, affidavit in reply is filed by the Administrative Officer. It is his say that the petitioners furlough application was rejected by the I. G. , Prisons on 20-1-1989 on the basis of adverse police opinion; the petitioner had challenged the said order and as this court has directed the I. G. , Prisons to reconsider the petitioners case the petitioners case was reconsidered and by a speaking order dated 4-7-1989 his furlough application was rejected by the i. G. , Prisons. In the said order, I. G. , Prisons has stated that District Superintendent of Police, bhavnagar has not recommended for furlough on the ground that there is likelihood of breach of peace. He has further stated that it is the function of the police to maintain law and order and, therefore, it would not be in public interest to grant furlough in spite of the adverse police opinion. ( 4 ) WHILE deciding the application for parole or furlough the I. G. , Prisons is forgetting the fact that he is exercising quasi-judicial powers and that too he is exercising the powers under the statutory rules framed by the State Government, under the provisions of the Act. That in number of cases we have observed that on the sole ground that police has given adverse opinion I. G. , Prisons rejects the parole or furlough application without application of his mind to the facts of the case and by not considering the decisions rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court. That in number of cases we have observed that on the sole ground that police has given adverse opinion I. G. , Prisons rejects the parole or furlough application without application of his mind to the facts of the case and by not considering the decisions rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) BEFORE deciding the parole or furlough application the I. G. , Prisons should bear in mind the objects of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and parole) Rules, 1959. These rules enable the prisoner to obtain his release and to return to the outside world for a short prescribed period. The object of such a release of a prisoner can be seen from para 101 of the report submitted by the All india Jail Manual Committee. These objects are considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhikhabhai v. State, reported in 28 (2) G. L. R. 1178 (= 1987 (l)GLH 139 = AIR 1587 Guj. 136 ). The relevant part reads as under:"13. The Parole and Furlough Rules are part of the penal and prison reform with a view to humanise the prison system. These rules enable the prisoner to obtain his release and to return to the outside world for a short prescribed period. The objects of such a release of prisoner can be read from para 101 of the report submitted by the all India Jail Manual Committee as also the objects mentioned in the Model Prison Manual, these objects are: (i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters; (ii) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life; (iii) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interest in life. 14. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for bombay (Prisons Amendment) Act No. 27 of 1953, the Jail Reforms Committee had recommended and the Government accepted the recommendation that: these should be the system of release of prisoners on furlough under which well behaved prisoners of certain categories should, as a matter of right have a spell of freedom occasionally after they undergo a specified period of imprisonment, so that they may maintain contact with their near relatives and friends and may not feel uprooted from society. Government accepted these recommendations and also decided that the furlough period should count towards the prisoners sentence. xxx xxx xxx xxx the experience has shown that the system has worked satisfactorily. The Prisons Act, 1894 does not specifically provide for the grant of furlough and the remission of sentence consequent upon it In order to place the system on a permanent footing and to enable the Government to delegate its powers to the Inspector General of prisons, it is necessary that the Prisons Act, 1894 should be amended in its application to the State of Bombay. 15. Thus, the Legislature has put the furlough system in the Act and it is made a matter of right. "5. Further in the case of Narsing N. Gamit v. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in 29 (2) G. L. R. 1268 (= 1989 (2) GLH 163 ) this Court has observed as under:"3. At the outset it should be noted that I. G. , prisons, should not reject the petitioners application for releasing him on furlough solely on the ground that there is adverse police opinion. The i. G. Prisons, before deciding the prisoners application for releasing him on forlough, should take into consideration the guidelines laid down under the relevant rules, i. e. , the Prisons (Bombay furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. 4. Firstly, if the prisoner is to be released on parole or furlough for the first time after his conviction, the I. G. , Prisons should consider the facts and circumstances and allegations against the prisoner for which he is convicted. For this purpose he should refer to the judgment and order passed by the court convicting him. From the judgment, he should try to find out whether the prisoner is hardened criminal, habitual offender or whether the offence took place all of a sudden or the offence took place because of some enmity or long-standing dispute between the parties. From the aforesaid circumstances he can arrive at the conclusion that by releasing the prisoner on furolough whether the prisoner is likely to commit any offence when he is on furlough whether there is likelihood of breach of peace during that period. 5. From the aforesaid circumstances he can arrive at the conclusion that by releasing the prisoner on furolough whether the prisoner is likely to commit any offence when he is on furlough whether there is likelihood of breach of peace during that period. 5. Secondly, he should consider the criteria laid down under Rule 4 of the Furlough and parole Rules, 1959 particularly whether the prisoner is a habitual offender, his conduct in the prison and whether he has shown any tendency towards crime in the prison and whether at any time he has escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or has defaulted in any way in surrendering himself at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough. Under Rule 8 subrule (5) if furlough is not recommended, the district Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police is required to mention adequate reasons therefor. Under sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 the Sanctioning authority is required to consider the said recommendation and pass an appropriate order. It does not mean that if the Authority has not recommended it without any reason or for any insufficient reason, the Sanctioning Authority, i. e. , the i. G. , Prisons should not release the prisoner on furlough. ( 6 ) THIRDLY, he should take into consideration whether the prisoner was previously released either on furlough or parole and at that time whether he committed any offence or whether any breach of peace took place. " in spite of these decisions and directions to the I. G. , Prisons, the I. G. , Prisons is rejecting furlough or parole applications in most of the cases mechanically by following police opinion. It seems that he does not consider the statutory rules which cast upon him a duty to decide the applications judicially. In most of the cases, some police constable visits the village where the prisoner intends to reside. He records statements of some of the relatives of the accused or victim and opines that there is likelihood of breach of peace if the prisoner is released. On the basis of these statements, opinion is forwarded by higher officer to the I. G. , Prisons that there is likelihood of breach of peace if the prisoner is released. He records statements of some of the relatives of the accused or victim and opines that there is likelihood of breach of peace if the prisoner is released. On the basis of these statements, opinion is forwarded by higher officer to the I. G. , Prisons that there is likelihood of breach of peace if the prisoner is released. On the basis of this opinion I. G. , Prisons rejects the applications without considering the fact that the prisoner was released previously on number of occasions and at that time no untoward incident had taken place. In our view, this approach of the i. G. , Prisons is totally unjustified, unreasonable and amounting to not discharging his duties in accordance with the rules. 6. In this case the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code for murdering his own sister as she was having illicit relations with one Muslim boy. There is nothing to show that he is a habitual offender. In these set of circumstances by no stretch of inclination it can be said that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that if he is released on parole or furlough he is likely to commit any other offence. In any set of circumstance, it is the say of the petitioner that if he is released on furlough he would stay in Sabarkantha district only and would not go at Bhavnagar where the offence took place. ( 7 ) IN the result, the application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner be released on furlough on usual terms and conditions with an added condition that during the period of furlough the petitioner shall reside in Sabarkantha district only and would report at the nearest police station thrice a week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 10 a. m. and 11 a. m. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent .