Bail frees suspects. Je donne ma parole means “I speak” Furloughs are commuted. CPC 438 allows anticipatory bail. The Law Commission of India recommended eliminating pre-arrest bail.

Bailable criminals may ask. Non-bailable crimes aren’t released. Authorities can’t refuse posted bail. The Supreme Court has specified factors to consider when establishing rape and other non-bailable bail. The court must know the crime’s severity and the accused’s involvement before arrest.

True. Detention affects reputation and life. To revenge rape, they will do anything. Howe invents parole in 1847. Parole lets inmates re-enter society.

It minimizes recidivism by helping convicts become law-abiding. Parole lowers prison population. India lacks parole. Courts determine parole. State-by-state parole eligibility varies.

Parole supervises sentences. Constitution requires humanizing parole. Isolation breeds crime. The Indian Supreme Court said parole reduces recidivism. Parole is granted.

Prisoners get parole. Parole improves productiveness. Available parole. Legalize parole. Parole is administered.

Judges call life without parole barbarous. Comprehensive ECHR parole legislation. State cannot unilaterally revoke parole. If a parolee can’t post bond, he may still request bail or furlough. Specialists handle parole.

Prashant Narayanan Rangachariya-Chopra urges justice reform. The COVID-19 directive indicated states must decide “which class of convicts may be released on parole” depending on “the kind of crime, the duration of the sentence, or the nature of the offences.” This ruling links states to defective parole standards. On June 9, 2020, Madras High Court cancelled 11 paroles. Bombay High Court overturned Kolhapur Central Prison Superintendent’s parole denials.

Parole must be renewed until directed otherwise. States freed paroled offenders after the Supreme Court verdict. Criminals refused parole owing to lack of healthcare, unemployment during an epidemic, or poor familial background. Parole and furlough are prison discharges. Given parole reason. Furlough could be cancelled.

This research paper discusses detailed information about bail, parole, and furlough like meaning, types different situations, case laws and difference between these three. Thus, this research will be fair and on to the point.


In this research paper we are going to have a detailed study on bail, parole and furlough. Before we go into the detailed analysis, we need to have a simple understating about what is a bail, parole and furlough


Bail signifies the procedure of obtaining the release of an accused charged with certain offences by securing his future court appearance and forcing him to stay within the court’s jurisdiction.


The term parole is derived from the French phrase je donne ma parole, which translates to “I give my word,” and its dictionary meaning is “word of honour.” Ideal parole treatment includes monitoring, guidance, and assistance. Important component of the criminal justice system is parole. In return for good behaviour, parole often refers to a prisoner’s temporary or permanent release before the completion of their term. It is a kind of assistance provided to inmates to aid in their reintegration into society. It is only a tool for the social rehabilitation of the prisoner.


Long-term incarceration is accompanied with a furlough. During furlough, a prisoner’s sentence is regarded to be commuted. It is to be permitted on a regular basis for no other purpose than to enable the prisoner to preserve family and social ties and to mitigate the detrimental effects of long-term incarceration. The prisoner has a considerable and legal right to be granted furlough, which cannot be denied if authorised by law.

  • To have a detailed study on bail
  • To conduct a detailed study on parole
  • To have a study on furlough
  • To know the differences between bail, parole & furlough

The majority of the information came from books, the internet, and secondary sources such as articles and research papers. The focus of the study is on the theoretical aspects of bail, parole and furlough


Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees all individuals protection of life and personal liberty. It ensures the basic right to live with human dignity and personal freedom, which provides us the right to request bail when detained by any law enforcement agency.

The provision for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was added in 1973. (hereinafter referred to as CrPC or Criminal Procedure Code). In its 41st report, the Law Commission of India suggested the adoption of an anticipatory bail provision. The study noted, “The need for providing anticipatory bail arises primarily because occasionally powerful individuals attempt to incriminate their competitors in fake cases for the aim of disgracing them or for other reasons by having them arrested.” When there are legitimate reasons for believing that a person accused of a crime would not abscond or otherwise abuse his freedom while on bail, there is no basis for requiring him to first submit to detention, spend a few days in jail, and then ask for release.

The ‘Bail’ provision, particularly anticipatory bail, is founded on the legal concept of ‘presumption of innocence,’ which states that everyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty. This is a basic value outlined in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, bail is “the security needed by a court for the release of a prisoner who must appear in court in the future.” The purpose of arrest is to serve justice by bringing the suspect before the court. However, if the same goal can be accomplished without arresting him, there is no reason to violate his freedom. Because of this, the accused may be granted bail for restricted release.


The word “Bail” is not defined in the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code. Only “Bailable Offense” and “Non-Bailable Offense” are specified in Section 2(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In Section 436-450 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requirements regarding bail and bail bonds are outlined.


In terms of bail, crimes are categorised as bailable and non-bailable, as described in the following sections.

Infractions bailable

According to Section 2(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a bailable offence is one that is defined as bailable in the First Schedule of the Code or under any other legislation. If an individual is charged of committing a bailable offence, he has the right to request bail. The police officer or other authority has no power to deny bail if the defendant is willing to post it. A person accused of a bailable offence at any moment while under arrest without a warrant and at any stage of the proceedings has the right to be freed on bail according to Section 436 of the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code.

Crimes not subject to bail

A non-bailable offence is any offence that cannot be released on bail. A person accused of a non-bailable offence is not entitled to bail. A person accused of non-bailable offences may be released on bail if none of the following requirements are met:

There are reasonable grounds for believing he has committed a crime punishable by death or life in prison.

That the accused has committed a cognizable offence and has previously been convicted of an offence punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more, or if the accused has been convicted of two or more cognizable and non-bailable offences.

[Section 437(1) CrPC] There are unusual circumstances in which the law pays particular regard to instances in which the accused is a juvenile, a woman, a sick person, etc.


Regular bail

The court orders the release of an arrested individual from police custody upon payment of the specified bail sum. Under Sections 437 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an accused may file for normal bail.

Interim bail

This is a direct order from the court to give the defendant with temporary and short-term bail while his regular or anticipatory bail application is underway. In Rukmani Mahato v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court took note of the defendant’s abuse of interim release.

Pre-emptive bail

This is a direct order from Sessions or High Court to release a criminal suspect on bail prior to arrest. When a person fears arrest, he or she may submit an application for anticipatory bail. A request for anticipatory bail may sometimes backfire, since it may alert an investigating agency to the person’s possible participation in a crime.

  • Considerations to be examined while granting anticipatory bail in India

In accordance with Section 438(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court has specified a comprehensive list of factors to examine while determining anticipatory bail. The list is as follows:

  1. The gravity of the crime and the accused’s participation must be known prior to the arrest.
  2. The accused’s criminal history, including any incarceration for a non-bailable offence, should be investigated.
  3. Possibility of the applicant evading justice.
  4. Possibilities of repeating similar or different offences.
  5. By detaining the applicant, the allegation may seek to harm or humiliate the applicant.
  6. Consider the accused’s precise involvement.
  7. There is a reasonable fear of tampering with evidence and witnesses, as well as intimidating the complaint.
  8. Conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail
  9. When requested, the accused must attend to questioning by the authority conducting the inquiry.
  10. The accused may not directly or indirectly encourage, intimidate, or promise any individual associated with the case who understands the facts of the case to prevent him from giving the information to the court or investigating officer.
  11. The accused should not leave the country without the court’s approval.
  12. Any additional requirement that the court considers appropriate.
  • Revocation of bail

Under Section 437(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge that granted bail may revoke it under specific circumstances. According to Section 439(2), the Sessions Court, High Court, or Supreme Court may unilaterally revoke the accused’s bail and send the accused to jail. According to Section 389(2), an appeal court may also revoke the accused’s bail and order his or her detention and confinement.

  1. Re: Digendra Sarkar – Under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the application for anticipatory bail may be made prior to the filing of the First Information Report. Therefore, the First Information Report cannot be a prerequisite for requesting anticipatory bail.
  2. State v. Suresh Vasudeva — Section 438(1) only applies to non-bailable offences.
  3. In Sushila Agarwal v. State, the Supreme Court ruled that anticipatory bail should not be for a definite term, although the court may restrict the duration of anticipatory relief if extraordinary circumstances need it.
  4. In Gurbaksha Singh Sibbia et al. v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held:
  5. There are no rules in the Criminal Procedure Code governing time limits for the granting of pre-arrest anticipatory bail. The relevant court has the option to establish conditions for the issuance of anticipatory bail, such as a restricted term of protection, etc., subject to consideration of any appropriate particular circumstances.
  • A basic right to anticipative bail

Under the Indian Constitution, every individual has a basic right to life and personal autonomy. Article 21 is a constitutional provision. The purpose of this article is to ensure that no individual is deprived of his life or liberty unless in accordance with the legal process. As a person cannot prepare their case for trial from behind bars, the law provides bail to provide them a fair opportunity to plead their case using all available means. In addition, because an accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty, detention of any kind tarnishes the individual’s reputation and prevents him from carrying out his everyday activities. In order to prevent such burdens, a person has the option of requesting anticipatory bail.

Clause 4 has been inserted to Section 438 as a result of the 2018 Criminal Amendment Bill. The legislature added four provisions to Section 438. According to the amendment, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a person accused of the offence of committing rape against a woman under the age of 16 years, under the age of 12 years, gang rape against a woman under the age of 16 years, and gang rape of a woman under the age of 12 years, punishable under Section 376(3), 376 AB, 376 DA, and 376 DB respectively of the Indian Penal Code (Punishment of

As a horrible crime, rape should be punished by law with severe penalties. However, there is a distinction between being accused and being declared guilty. The likelihood of an accused’s acquittal after trial is substantial; thus, denying the right to bail goes against the spirit of justice. Rape is a severe crime, but today individuals would go to any lengths to discredit an individual in order to get retribution; as a result, the number of fictitious rape cases is on the rise. Therefore, this amendment reduces the ability to obtain anticipatory bail unlawfully.

  • To conduct a detail study on parole
  • Parole definition

The term parole is derived from the French phrase je donne me parole, which translates to “I give my word.” Monitoring, guidance, and assistance are crucial for parole. All paroled criminals benefit from parole officers’ surveillance, but all convicts should be closely monitored during their term of readjustment. A prisoner who spends more than a decade behind bars loses contact with the outside world in terms of transportation, basic supplies, renting a house/shop, etc., but acquires skills that must be unlearned.

Military law gave birth to parole. With the assurance that they would return, prisoners of war were permitted to return to their families and live as members of society during their interim freedom. In India’s criminal justice system, parole allowed prisoners to re-join society. Only prisoners who have completed a portion of their sentence were eligible.


Positive legislation provides for parole. In 1847, Samvel G. Howe devised parole. According to classical philosophy, individuals are free to choose their own behaviour. A criminal continuously calculates his pleasure and gain at the expense of others’ suffering. Punish him. Positivists felt that external factors caused criminal behaviour. He must be rehabilitated. Parole came later. It permits the prisoner to evolve. Even if the culprit has committed a crime, he should not be permanently labelled and denied salvation.


Parole permits the inmate to mend. Even if the culprit has committed a crime, he should not be permanently labelled and denied salvation. It assists the prisoner in becoming a law-abiding citizen and avoids his recidivism. To prevent the hazards and costs of overcrowding, parole may serve as a “safety valve” to maintain prison populations within capacity.

The purpose of parole is to improve inmates’ character. This correctional method is successful if the offender demonstrates that he is capable of changing his ways and will cease committing harmful offences, and if he advances in character and conduct.

According to Budhi v. State of Rajasthan (2005), parole serves three purposes:

  1. To promote jail reform.
  2. Ensure that the prisoner’s family ties remain as intact as possible despite his lengthy incarceration.
  3. Assist offenders in their social integration.

State of Delhi v. Charanjit Lal, case number 28, was resolved in 1985.

  1. By penalising criminals, a state attempts deterrence, prevention, retribution, and rehabilitation.
  2. Life sentence inmates should be granted occasional freedom to address personal and family issues and maintain social connections.
  3. If they conduct well in jail and demonstrate a willingness to reform, they should be freed for a little while.
  4. For the benefit of society, these criminals must be redeemed and rehabilitated while serving their sentences.

The Prison Act of 1894 and the Prisoner Act of 1900 regulate parole in India. State-by-state parole requirements vary. Section 59(5) of the 1984 Prisons Act established the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Good behaviour is rewarded by furlough to relieve the monotony of incarceration. Long-term prisoners are eligible for furlough. Unlike parole, furlough is not required.

The two types of parole are regular and restricted. Ineligible for release include non-Indian nationals, those convicted of crimes against the state or national security, and others. Those who have been convicted of murder, rape of a minor, repeated homicides, and other offences are also ineligible.


Parole-eligible criminals must:

  1. A criminal must have spent a minimum of one year in prison, excluding periods of pardon.
  2. The prisoner must maintain proper conduct.
  3. The paroled offender should not have committed any offences.
  4. The offender should not have violated parole conditions.
  5. Since the last revocation of parole, six months must have elapsed.

The jail officials (Superintendent) require a report from the arresting police station when a prisoner requests release. The report, together with any further documents such as a medical report (if illness is a reason for release), and the Superintendent’s recommendation are transmitted to the Deputy Secretary, Home (General), State Government, who makes the final decision. In certain locations, the District Magistrate transmits the application, police report, and suggestion to the Inspector General of Prisons. State Government and District Magistrate make decisions.


Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 addresses the suspension and commutation of sentences. The Indian Supreme Court decided in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (2000) that parole does not sentence suspension. The CPC’s section 432 does not apply to parole.

Since the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 includes no parole-related parts and India has no unified parole legislation, each state has its own parole law. Thus, parole issues are uncertain. India has a specified parole law; therefore, parole choices are governed by the law and court judgments.

  1. Emergency/release from detention

Emergency release is authorised. All convicted individuals, excluding foreigners and those serving death sentences, are eligible for 14 days of emergency release for the death of a family member (grandparents, father, mother, spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister) or the marriage of a family member (grandparents, father, mother, spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister) (son, daughter, brother, sister).

The superintendent of the prison grants parole, contingent upon police verification. Depending on the prisoner’s offence and behaviour during his incarceration, the authority authorising emergency parole determines whether to grant parole with police escort or with daily police station reporting. Before being granted parole, the inmate must pay for a police escort. A prisoner cannot be granted regular or emergency parole for one year after the expiration of his prior parole unless his closest relatives pass away.

  • Probation
  • Criminals with at least one year of incarceration are eligible for one month of normal parole. It is given for reasons such as:
  • An ill relative (including father, mother, spouse, son, and daughter) (include father, mother, husband, son, and daughter)
  • Accident or death in the family (as incarceration probation)
  • Married:
  • wife of the offender gives birth (except for high-security risk prisoners).
  • Maintain social connections
  • Natural disasters affect the offender’s family.
  • Submit a Petition for Special Leave.

In 1976, the Indian Supreme Court determined that parole, a penological innovation, aids in rehabilitation and decreases recidivism. In the case of Mohinder Singh, parole was defined as “the conditional release of a prisoner who has served a portion of his sentence.” A sentence-related executive action is parole. During parole, the sentence is still in effect.

In Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., Justice Krishna Iyer said, “If the State adopts a flexible approach, it may be possible to allow longer periods of parole, under restrictive restrictions, therefore eradicating the fear that total freedom, if granted, would be abused” (1965). Humanizing parole terms is vital to the humane constitutionalism of our system. Isolation amid the harsh company of other criminals produces an abundance of vices.

The 2005 landmark case Saibanna v. State of Karnataka involves the murder of a woman by her husband. His second wife and daughter were killed while he was on parole for adultery. The court found that social safety and victim rights are inextricably linked. The accused’s rights cannot trump those of the victim and society. This would have led to erroneous sympathy for the accused.

The Delhi Rules on Parole featured a clause designed to strike a compromise between enabling parolees to interact with society and maintain family connections and preventing such gatherings. Murderers, rapists, and thieves are ineligible for interim release. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2012) determined that this breached Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The Delhi High Court ruled in Election Commission of India v. Mukhtar Ansari (2017) that prison release cannot be extended for longer lengths of time or daily visits. In Babulal Das v. State of West Bengal (1975), the Supreme Court decided that those incarcerated and outraged without conviction must be given the opportunity to redeem themselves by the legitimate use of parole authority, measured risks, and short-term release. This might be a societal advantage if the benevolent authority is used prudently. The Supreme Court said in Inder Singh v. the State (Delhi Administration) (1978) that parole should be flexible, particularly for serious offences.

In Sanjay Kumar Valmiki v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020), it was said that “parole is a discretionary exercise, while furlough is a release-eligible benefit right of the offender” In cases of emergency, release, and furlough are permitted provided certain criteria are satisfied. A prisoner is only eligible for furlough under Rules 1171 to 1178 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and Rule 1223 if he has three Annual Good Conduct Remissions.


The Supreme Court has contradictory opinions on this matter. The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1987 that release time cannot be excluded while calculating prison time. In Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that “temporary release of a convicted prisoner has no effect on his status.” There is no deduction for parole from the maximum sentence. The ruling of Poonam Lata was overruled.

In Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur (2019) and Hariom Vijay Pande v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Bombay High Court declared that parole is a restricted legal privilege granted by the Divisional Commissioner (2019). Home Secretary (Prison) v. H. Nilofer Nisha (2020) said that “remission or release is not a prerogative of prisoners.” A prisoner may get it if certain circumstances are met.

  • Holdup

The purpose of parole is to assist prisoners in becoming productive members of society. Parole provides a condemned prisoner with some liberty or less restrictions. Administrative directives inform the state’s parole rules. To be released on parole, criminals must contact government or prison personnel. In the majority of instances, the executive responds without intelligence or understanding. They deny parole for many reasons, such as disturbing the peace or committing a crime while on the outside.

Declaratory Judgment of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969), Mansa Ram v. S.P. Pathak (1983), and Lall Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1984) hold that legitimate authority must be used within a reasonable timeframe. Lall Chand examines the distinction between “public order” and “law and order.”

Kesar Singh Guleria vs. State of Himachal Pradesh declared in 1984 that “public order” encompasses less severe diseases than “state security” and “law and order” encompasses fewer severe illnesses than “public order.” In instances involving law and order, it is reasonable to consider monitoring the prisoner’s temporary release and asking him to report at regular intervals to the closest police station.

  • These prisoners/convicts may not be parole-eligible:
  1. Inmates whose parole release is dangerous or a threat to national security, or if there is another reasonable cause, such as a significant criminal investigation;
  2. Inmates who have committed state offences or incited significant prison disciplinary infractions, such as sedition;
  3. evading prisoners;
  4. Inmate isn’t Indian.
  5. privileged release

In India, parole has administrative significance but is not a legal privilege. The prison administration determines whether or not to grant parole to a prisoner. Several international agreements and organisations recognise prisoner release on parole. Some judges believe that an irreducible life sentence (life without parole) breaches human dignity, hence the European Court of Human Rights

has developed a substantial body of parole law. The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights believes that certain nations should give parole.

The 2017 decision Ashfaq v. State of Rajasthan explains India’s parole legislation. In this instance, the court acknowledged that parole is a kind of restricted release contingent on good behaviour and regular reporting. The delay is just temporary; his penalty remains harsh. The Gujarat High Court found in 1992 that denial of freedom violated jail justice.

State of Rajasthan (2012) considered the Supt. of Police’s report ambiguous and suspect. The report said, “The purpose of parole is to reintegrate convicted convicts into society.” Law and order must be preserved, yet a competent and eligible petitioner cannot be granted release. So, 20 days parole.

Natia Jiria v. State of Gujarat (1984) found that while no inmate has a legal right to furlough, the laws apply uniformly to all inmates, hence it cannot be refused to any.

In the Kesar Singh Guleria case(supra), it was determined that the Releasing Authority will always keep in mind that a prisoner’s right to be released on bail or furlough, depending on the circumstances, upon fulfilling the other conditions is not forfeited solely because he cannot post a security bond or surety bond due to his financial situation.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has determined that parole is a privilege conferred by the state that cannot be cancelled arbitrarily.

  • Parole breaches

While judges and criminologists have prioritised parole to mitigate the harshest features of prison life, it remains unclear if parole serves a purpose or is essentially a kind of emigration. The recent case of Manu Sharma aroused international criticism for sloppy prison administration and an even sloppier State Government, which aided a Jessica Lal murderer.

Example: Bibi Jagir’s Kaur. Bibi Jagir was imprisoned for the murder of her daughter. In 2018, she was cleared of murder charges. Five years behind bars After four months, she was paroled. As a former cabinet minister of the Punjab, she allegedly received preferential treatment.

Recently released parolee Bitti Mohanty In this case, the son of the DGP of Orissa raped a German. He received seven years in prison and a fine. In November 2006, he was freed in order to see his ailing mother. His father was his support. When he left, his father pretended not to notice. Due to a tip, police captured him in Kerala in March of 2013. The defendant had changed his identity and refused to reveal that it was Bitti Mohanty.

Dr. Jalees Ansari, also known as Dr. Bomb, was found guilty in the Ajmer explosives, Jaipur serial explosion, and Malegaon bombing cases. Since the early 1990s, he has been suspected of planning and carrying out more than fifty bombings around the nation. The individual was last seen on January 16, 2020, the day before reporting.

A parolee on probation is capable of committing crimes. Included in Saibanna v. State of Karnataka was a guy serving a life sentence for killing his first wife (2005). During the month of his release, he murdered his second wife and kid and inflicted 21 wounds. The Supreme Court determined that premeditated, heinous, and unprovoked killings justified the death punishment. In Krishan v. State of Haryana (2013), the defendant was sentenced to life in prison for killing a parolee.

  • Abuse penalties

If severe legal penalties were implemented, parole abuse may decline. Under the Act, a parole breach carries a two-year prison sentence. Please read this claim in order. Inmates on parole who commit a criminal while on vacation should forfeit eligibility. By alerting prospective victims and the local police, who may enhance patrols, it is possible to prevent such crimes. The Ministry of the Interior issued parole and furlough regulations.

  • Misuse solutions

To prevent all violations of parole would be utopian. A system of reformative criminal justice administration requires liberal legislation. If specialised authorities supervise parole granting and manage its administration, a balance may be reached despite the imperfect application of parole laws. U.S. policy is comparable.

Misuse may be reduced if parole is given for several reasons and validated by different authorities.

Multiple authorities with the power to conduct assessments, background checks, etc. might prevent the misuse of permissive parole laws.

If a parolee commits a crime while on release, a restriction on future parole may instil fear and discourage recidivism. The Sashastra Seema Bal Act of 2007 has a similar clause.

  • COVID-19, parole

Coronavirus is very contagious. Diabetes, hypertension, chronic respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease, and old age increase their risk. Dense populations enhance the transmissibility of the virus. Nationwide, prisoners requested bond extensions and interim bail/paroles. Given the condition of India’s jails, a large number of individuals were in danger of developing this disease. In response, the Supreme Court of India instructed states and union territories to expeditiously grant parole to criminals.

India’s unsanitary and overcrowded prisons serve as viral transmission sites. The Supreme Court’s Parole rule was a landmark decision, but it was also complex. First, the categorization system for prisoners eligible for parole is inadequate. According to the guideline, prisoners must be freed depending on the severity of their crime or the duration of their sentence.

When analyzing the primary source of this issue, the sickness, it is essential to evaluate the ages of the inmates and whether or not any have underlying conditions that put them at risk for the virus. According to the order, these aged and ill prisoners may not be eligible for release. They may only be freed if certain requirements are met, including as the gravity of their offence and the harshness of their punishment. The court did not order the state to build transfer facilities for parolees.

The decree said that it is up to the states to choose “which class of criminals may be released on parole” based on “the nature of the offence, the length of the sentence, or the gravity of the offence.” This decision ties the states and superior courts to the flawed parole eligibility criteria.

A Public Interest Litigation challenging the classification as a breach of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution was considered by the Bombay High Court. Consider the court’s decision in National Alliance for People’s Movements Through its National Convener and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Through its Additional Chief Secretary and Others (2020). In light of the pandemic, it was determined whether prisoners had the right to immediate release. The court held that there was no “sanction of law traceable to legislation of the competent

legislature, an executive order with legal power, or a Supreme Court law compulsory on all detainees.”


According to a research by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 22,000 prisoners were pardoned in reaction to the Supreme Court’s epidemic ruling. In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, several governments have given directions to explore prisoner release. The UT of J&K’s High-Powered Committee recommended to the J&K High Court that “a person who has been convicted in one case and served more than ten years in prison (eight years and five months for women) can be considered for special parole, with the exception of cases involving militancy, the NDPS Act 1985, the POCSO Act, or crimes against women, acid attacks, or foreigners.”

Due to the “unique circumstances” of a nationwide lockdown, the Allahabad High Court and the Rajasthan High Court rejected the requirement that each parolee post two bail bonds before to release. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the classification of parolees by crime kind and severity. Certain felons may be granted special parole, the court ruled. “Such a restriction cannot be deemed unconstitutional if the benefit is not granted to those convicted of grave and state-harming offences,” In Manu v. State of Rajasthan (2021), the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a PIL Petition seeking to extend parole to murder convicts, stating that the High-Powered Committee is to frame the necessary policy for the release of prisoners on parole due to the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with Supreme Court directives.

The UP High-Power Committee requested that the interim availability of 14,854 UTPs be extended until May 27, 2020. The High Court of Madras reversed the parole decisions of eleven criminals on June 9, 2020, in response to a March 26, 2020 ruling to decongest prisons in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic.

The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the Superintendent of Kolhapur Central Prison’s orders denying parole to three applicant convicts, stating that the amended parole rule, which states that convicts with a maximum sentence of more than seven years may be considered for emergency parole if they have returned to prison on time on their previous two releases, only applies if the convict has returned to prison on time on their previous two releases. This decision was affirmed in Milind Patil v. Maharashtra State (2020) In a second instance, the Court ruled that authorities must presume parole will be extended unless the Court specifically states otherwise.

A full bench of the Bombay High Court ruled in Pintu vs. the State of Maharashtra (2020) that a prisoner convicted under the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act is not entitled to emergency (COVID-19) parole pursuant to an 8 May government notification, citing its decision in Sardar s/o Shawali Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr (2020).

The Supreme Court ordered Tamil Nadu to provide an escort for the medical examinations of AG Perarivalan. Perarivalan murdered Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

According to the ruling in Pradeep v. the State of Delhi, no distinction may be made between parolees released by prison authorities and those granted parole by the court (2020). On 6 May 2021, the High-Powered Committee of the Delhi High Court met to discuss proactive and effective measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within prisons and to ensure social distancing by identifying and determining the class or classes of prisoners who can be released on interim bails or paroles once more.

On 11 May 2021, the High-Powered Committee (for Uttarakhand and Haryana) gave previously paroled offenders 90 days of parole (supra). The Supreme Court directed the High­ Powered Committee of the States to expeditiously and subject to limits release all inmates freed by its March 23, 2020 ruling (in addition to considering fresh release).


Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, states have begun releasing paroled prisoners. There have been instances of prisoners refusing to be released, citing lack of access to healthcare outside of prison, unemployment during an epidemic, and lack of basic necessities such as food due to a poor family background, among other reasons.

At least eight inmates at Mysuru Central Jail rejected the 90-day release granted to reduce prison overcrowding during the second COVID-19 outbreak. They are concerned that the lockdown will prevent them from earning a livelihood since the disease is more deadly outdoors.

Most individuals go far to escape jail. Twenty-one inmates incarcerated in nine institutions in Uttar Pradesh have written to authorities stating that being incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic is safer and healthier for them.

At least 26 Maharashtra prison prisoners have denied immediate release. According to the minutes of a May meeting to examine measures to decongest prisons during Covid, prisoners are not pleased with their temporary release.


“The granting of leave is governed by Rules 3 and 4.” Rule 3 specifies the qualifying requirements for offenders serving varying terms of incarceration, whereas Rule 4 imposes restrictions. Rule 3’s usage of the phrase “may be released” suggests the lack of an absolute right. This is further emphasised in Rule 17, which stipulates that stated Rules do not provide a prisoner a legal right to request furlough. Thus, the granting of vacation is a discretionary remedy limited by the above-quoted Rules 3 and 4.”

These are the principles established by the Court:

  1. Furlough and parole entail a temporary release from incarceration;
  2. Furlough may be awarded when a prisoner has served a certain number of years without cause, while parole is allowed for the prisoner to fulfil a particular emergency.
  3. Furlough is granted to interrupt the monotony of incarceration and to allow the criminal to retain continuity with family life and social integration.
  4. Although furlough may be requested without explanation, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to request furlough. The grant of furlough must be weighed against the public interest, and some types of convicts may be denied furlough.
  1. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, (2006) 4 SCC 776

While parole and furlough are both temporary departures from incarceration, parole is issued for a particular reason. Rule 3 stipulates that a prisoner is eligible to petition for furlough after serving the minimum number of years of his sentence.

The purposes of “furlough” and “parole” are distinct. In accordance with Rule 19, reasons must be stated when releasing a prisoner on furlough, but they are not required when granting parole. However, Rule 17 does not indicate that furlough release is an absolute privilege of the prisoner. It is subject to the provisions of Rules 4(4) and 6. Periodic furlough is permitted under Rule 3 for the sole purpose of enabling the prisoner to maintain familial, familial, and social relationships and minimising the negative effects of prolonged imprisonment. A furlough period is considered as time spent in jail. However, Rule 20 indicates that parole time is not to be included as sentence reduction. Since furlough is provided for no specific reason, it may be revoked in the interest of society, while parole should only be granted if adequate cause is shown.

  • Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 3 SCC 394

When a prisoner is on parole, his duration of release does not count against the entire period of his sentence. However, when he is on furlough, his period of release may be counted towards the overall period of his sentence.

  • State of Rajasthan v. Asfaq, (2017) 15 SCC 55

A parole is conditional release of convicts or the early release of a prisoner contingent on good behaviour and frequent reporting to the authorities for a certain time period. It may also be characterised as a sort of conditional pardon that releases the offender before the end of his sentence. Therefore, parole is given for good behaviour on the condition that the parolee report to a supervising officer on a regular basis for a predetermined amount of time. Such a release of a prisoner on parole may also be temporary for certain fundamental reasons. In such a case, it is to be considered a temporary suspension of the sentence, with the total punishment amount being unchanged. The purpose of parole is to provide inmates with some respite in certain circumstances.

In contrast, furlough is a temporary release from incarceration. It is conditional and granted in the event of lengthy incarceration. The time spent on furlough by convicts is not required to be served by him, as is the case with parole. Furlough is provided as a reward for excellent behaviour.

  1. Parole and furlough are both forms of restricted release.
  2. In the event of short-term incarceration, parole is given, and in the case of long-term imprisonment, furlough is granted. The maximum length of parole is one month, whereas the maximum length of furlough is fourteen days.
  3. The Divisional Commissioner grants parole, whereas the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons grants furlough.
  4. For parole, a particular cause is necessary, whereas furlough is intended to relieve the monotony of incarceration.
  5. The duration of incarceration is not included in the calculation of parole, although it is in the case of furlough.
  6. The number of paroles that may be given is unlimited, while furlough is restricted.
  7. Since vacation is not awarded for any specific purpose, it is permissible to deny it in the benefit of society.
  • To know the differences between bail, parole & furlough

The purpose of both furlough and parole is to find a balance between the rights of the criminal and the rights of society in order to prevent the offender from inflicting further damage. Both furlough and parole are forms of conditional release, meaning that the criminal must conform to the requirements of the order authorising furlough or parole, such as regularly reporting to the local police station. If the competent authority determines that the offender’s release will be damaging to society, parole and furlough may be rejected.

  • Difference between parole and furlough
Serial no.Parole Furlough
  1.It is not a right of the prisoner. It is the right of the prisoner.
  2.It is releasing a prisoner with a suspension of the sentence. It is releasing a prisoner with remission of his sentence.
  3.In the case of short-term confinement, parole may be granted.In the case of long-term confinement, Furlough may be granted.
  4.It can be granted a number of times.There is a limitation to granting furlough.
  5.The parole lasts for one month.Furlough lasts for fourteen days maximum.
  6.A specific justification is necessary.It is to break the monotony of punishment so no justification is needed.
  7.The days of leave aren’t included within the sentenced period.The sentence of the convict goes along with the furlough period. 
  8. It is granted by the Divisional Commissioner.It is granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons.

Many persons incorrectly assume that parole and bail are identical. However, there is a difference between the two, and each has significant legal repercussions. In criminal law, bail is generally known, and Chapter XXXIII of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure contains bail provisions.

Sections 436, 437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure outline the jurisdiction of the courts to issue bail. Section 436 deals with bail for bailable offences, Section 437 with when bail may be taken for non-bailable offences, Section 438 with the instruction to offer bail to anybody facing arrest, and Section 439 with the High Court and Court of Sessions’ exclusive authority to grant bail. The accused is freed from confinement when bail is granted, but the

Court maintains constructive control over him via the sureties. If the defendant is released on his own recognisance, such constructive control might still be exercised under the conditions of the bond.

The purpose of both furlough and parole is to find a balance between the rights of the criminal and the rights of society in order to prevent the offender from inflicting further damage. Both furlough and parole are forms of conditional release, meaning that the criminal must conform to the requirements of the order authorising furlough or parole, such as regularly reporting to the local police station. If the competent authority determines that the offender’s release will be damaging to society, parole and furlough may be rejected.

In State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh (2000), the Supreme Court distinguished bail from parole by stating that parole is a temporary release from incarceration but is regarded a component of imprisonment. The purpose of parole as a component of the rehabilitation process is to enable the criminal to alter his behaviour and become a productive member of society. A parole is basically a grant of partial liberty or a decrease in restrictions to a convicted prisoner, but it does not alter the status of the prisoner. Rules are developed to guarantee paroled criminals are watched by parole authorities, and that if they violate their parole conditions, they are returned to jail.


Section 438 was created to protect an individual’s freedom. The necessity for anticipatory bail arises primarily when an individual has probable cause to suspect he will be arrested on a charge of committing a non-bailable crime. Anticipatory bail is concerned with a person’s freedom and presupposes their innocence. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, a five-judge Supreme Court panel headed by then-Chief Justice Y V Chandrachud ruled that Section 438 (1) must be construed in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. While courts have often emphasised the necessity to safeguard the liberty of people and protect them from arbitrary arrests, one must keep in mind that anticipatory bail is not a right like other forms of bail. Undoubtedly, parole cannot be avoided. In this environment, a parole system seems reasonable and essential. It is an endorsement of a humane approach to incarcerated individuals. The primary objective of such legislation is to give offenders with the opportunity to resolve their personal and family issues while enabling them to maintain links to society. Therefore, parole and furlough, when managed properly, may aid inmates in successfully reintegrating into society and leading lawful lives.

Siddharth jain and Co.

Siddharth Jain & Co. is a full service law firm providing quality and innovative legal solutions to clients all over the world. Our portfolio of legal and quasi-legal services is offered through our head office in New Delhi. Siddharth Jain & Co. was established in 2015. We have a team of lawyers with expertise in different fields. Our expertise revolves around 39 service areas and we continue to enter into new markets continuously. We continue to join new prospects and new clients with us every passing day due to our commitment to quality-based services. Our idea of working involves strict adherence to specified goals and creative modes of achieving them. Siddharth Jain & Co. has always worked towards attaining excellence in every case or problem presented. We continue to strive to become the leader in providing legal services in the country and abroad. Our clientele includes clients from all over the world. With several awards in our profile, we proudly continue to move forward. We are always ready and prepared to welcome and embrace any new challenge. We have worked with and for government agencies. We have worked in rural areas beyond any reach of technology. We have worked with clients alien to law whatsoever. But we have always maintained our prime goal and target of client satisfaction and would continue to go so in future.

Comments (2)

gate io

Feb 2, 2023, 11:28 pm

For my thesis, I consulted a lot of information, read your article made me feel a lot, benefited me a lot from it, thank you for your help. Thanks!


Cryptocurrency Prices

Mar 3, 2023, 8:47 pm

Cool. I spent a long time looking for relevant content and found that your article gave me new ideas, which is very helpful for my research. I think my thesis can be completed more smoothly. Thank you.


Leave a Reply