You are on page 1of 20



Project on:

Necessity of Parole : its use & misuse







Any project completed or done in isolation is unthinkable. This

project, although prepared by me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot
of people.

Firstly, I would like to thank our teacher, Father Peter Ladis for his
valuable suggestions towards the making of this project.

Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards my

seniors who were a lot of help for the completion of this project.

The contributions made by my classmates and friends are, definitely,

worth mentioning.

I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for their
help also.

Last, but far from the least, I would express my gratitude towards the
Almighty for obvious reasons.



1. present detailed study on the topic of Parole, it’s use and it’s misuse.
2. To study various landmark cases held in Supreme Court and High Courts
of India.


For the purpose of research, the researcher has followed the doctrinal
method of research. The researcher has relied upon various primary and
secondary sources to look for information related to the information about


Sources of data include primary as well as secondary sources of data.


1. Parole is used by the prisoners for their necessary release.

2. Sometimes parole is also misused by the prisoners.



1. Introduction

2. Use of Parole

3. Misuse of Parole

4. Parole and Probation : A comparative study

5. Conclusion




Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner after he has served a portion of his
sentence. Parole can be granted on medical or humanitarian grounds, to enable
the jail inmates to maintain a relationship with their families, save them from
the (negative) effects of a continuous prison life, and help them retain some
self-confidence and an interest in life. It is important to understand that Parole is
not a right granted to the prisoner; it is merely an act of grace extended by the
jail authorities to the prisoner, in lieu of good behavior; it is merely a
provisional release from confinement. The release on Parole does not change
the status of the prisoner. It is deemed to be a part of the imprisonment.

The object of parole:

Parole is a penal device which seeks to humanise prison system. The objects of
parole are:

(1) To enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal
with family matters;

(2) To save the inmates from the evil effects of continuous prison life;

(3) To enable the inmate to retain self-confidence and active interest in life.

The Indian law provides for parole only in cases of serious offenders who are
committed to long-term sentences.1

There are two kinds of Parole that can be applied for – Custody Parole and
Regular Parole:

i. Custody Parole
ii. Regular Parole

1 Apil Khanal , “Legal Provisions Regarding Release of Prisoners on Parole in India”, shareyouressays via
accessed on 1.04.14 at 12.10am.


A Custody Parole is granted for a period of not more than six hours, in an
emergency situation – as in the marriage, serious illness or death of a family
member, or some other such situation. It is the duty of the Jail Superintendent to
verify the existence of the circumstances mentioned, before granting Parole.

A Regular Parole is granted under one of the following circumstances:

1. Marriage or serious illness of a family member.

2. Critical condition in the family on account of an accident or death of a
family member.
3. Delivery of a child of the convict and there is no one else to look after the
4. Serious damage to life or property of the convict, due to a natural
5. To file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against an order
passed by the High Court.
6. To maintain family and social ties.

In cases where an appeal is pending before the High Court, Parole will not be
granted, since appropriate orders can be sought from the High Court.

For a convict to seek Parole, (s)he must fulfill the following conditions:

1. Should have served a minimum of one year of the sentence

2. The conduct in prison must be good
3. A period of six months should have lapsed between the last Parole and the
one applied for
4. During a previous Parole the convict should not have committed any crime
5. The convict should not have violated any conditions during the last Parole.

The Parole period, under normal circumstances, should not exceed one


There are some convicts who are not eligible to apply for Parole, due to the
nature of the crimes committed by them. They are governed by these

1. Convicts whose release can pose a threat to national security

2. Convicts whose release might lead to interference or tampering of evidence
in an ongoing investigation
3. Convicts who have been involved in crimes against the State (Sedition)
4. Convicts who have (earlier) escaped from jail
5. Convicts who are not citizens of India
6. If the convict is convicted of murder after rape
7. If the convict is convicted of rape and murder of children
8. If the convict is convicted of multiple murders.2

Guidelines for granting parole

In the backdrop of the controversy of Delhi government's grant of parole to

Jessica Lall murder convict Manu Sharma, the Central government today
submitted to Delhi High Court a set of fresh guidelines. As per the guidelines,
the prisoners involved in heinous crimes and whose release on parole is likely to
have serious repercussion elsewhere in the country cannot be granted parole.

Filing its drafted guidelines before a Division Bench of Chief Justice A P Shah
and Justice S Muralidhar, Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam told the Bench
that "the prisoners who are considered dangerous or have been involved in
serious offence like assault, “outbreak of mutiny” will not be granted parole".

Denying the allegation that the government grants parole to rich prisoners and
ignores the applications of poor, Subramaniam said the proposed guidelines

Vidya raja, “The Law & Beyond-Parole”, fridaygurgaon via accessed on 1.04.14 at 12:30am.


suggested those prisoners who were suffering from mental illness would not
given parole if not certified by the jail medical officer.

However, the government will grant parole or custody parole to those prisoners
in case of serious illness or critical condition, on account of accident or death of
a family member besides the marriage of a family member, said the counsel.

He said a prisoner can be granted parole for the delivery of his wife in case of
absence of any other family member to take care of her.

The Congress government in Delhi had come under flak for granting parole to
Sharma, son of powerful Haryana politician Venode Sharma, even while
appeals by other prisoners for such relief were pending.3

“Centre submits fresh guidelines for granting parole”, timesnow via
accessed on 1.04.14 at 1.12am.



The courts in India have generally favoured the view that the prisoners who
have been incarcerated or kept in prison without trial for a long time, should be
released on parole to maintain unity of family. It may be useful to refer to some
of the decisions to support this contention.

The need to paroling out long-term prisoners periodically for reasonable spells,
subject to sufficient safeguards ensuring their proper behaviour outside and
prompt return inside, was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Hiralal Mallick
v. State of Bihar. In this case the appellant was found guilty of the offence
under Section 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

He was only 12 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. The High
Court reduced the sentence to four years keeping in view the tender age of the
accused. The Supreme Court directed release of the appellant on parole for
reasonable spells so that his family ties are not snapped for long being insulated
from the world and he does not become beastial and dehumanised.

The Apex Court, however, noted that granting of parole for reasonable spells is
subject to sufficient safeguards ensuring prisoner’s proper behaviour outside the
prison and prompt return inside on completion of parole term.

The Supreme Court, in Dharamvir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, was once again
called upon to consider the desirability of release of long-term prisoners on
parole at regular intervals so that they are not totally cut-off from the society. In
the instant case, the appellant was found guilty of murder and convicted for
imprisonment for life.

There being no scope for reduction of period of sentence, the Apex Court found
parole desirable in such cases. It therefore, issued directions to the State
Government and the jail authorities that such prisoners be allowed to go on
parole for two weeks once in a year throughout the period of imprisonment,
provided they behaved well while on parole.


The Apex Court, in Suresh Chandra v. State of Gujarat, pointed out the
importance of the penological innovation in the shape of parole to check
recidivism. It recommended liberal use of parole as a viable alternative for
reducing overcrowding in prisons.

In Babulal Das v. State of West Bengal, Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer of the
Supreme Court (as he then was) struck a discordant note in adopting the
observation made by the Calcutta High Court and observed:

“It is fair that persons kept incarcerated and embittered without trial should be
given some chance to reform themselves by reasonable recourse to parole
power under Section 15 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.”

In Gurdeep Bagga v. Delhi Administration, a petition by life convict for parole

on the plea of illness of mother was rejected by the High Court on the ground
that the petitioner was earlier continuously on parole for more than two years
and he had two elder sisters to look after the ailing mother. The Supreme Court,
however, took a lenient view and recommended annual leave for life convict to
maintain unity of family.

In Veerumchanni Raghvendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme

Court ruled that release on parole and suspension of sentence during pendency
of appeal in Supreme Court is liable to be struck down being ultra vires the
statutory powers of State Government.

The Andhra Pradesh Parole Rules, 1981 (Rule 23), and Andhra Pradesh Prison
Rules, 1979 [Rule 974 (2)] were struck down in this case being inconsistent
with Section 432(5) read with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

In its landmark decision in Kesar Singh Guleria v. State of Himachal Pradesh,

the Supreme Court observed that for exercising the power, function and duty to
temporarily release the prisoners on parole, the paramount consideration which
the releasing authority shall bear in mind is that the right to be released is not
defeated merely because the prisoner on account of his impecunious condition
is unable to offer a security bond or surety bond.


The discretion to waive the requirement of furnishing bond should be exercised
in cases of poor prisoners bearing in mind other relevant considerations of
family-ties, roots in community and social conditions etc.

In a criminal appeal decided by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 15th
November, 1994, the question in issue was about the release of a Army Prisoner
on Parole. It was held that when an Army personnel is convicted by a Court
Martial and undergoing sentence in civil jail and is dismissed from service as a
result of this sentence, or ceased to be subject to the Army Act, 1950, it would
be erroneous on the part of the Army authorities to think that the prisoner
having been handed over to civil (police and jail) authorities, they (i.e., military
authorities) had no authority to release him on parole.

The High Court ruled that despite the fact that the prisoner has otherwise ceased
to be subject to Army Act, he could be still kept, removed, imprisoned and
punished by the Army authorities as if he continued to be subject to Sections
179 and 123-B of the Army Act.

The Court therefore, issued a direction to Army Authorities to release the

petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks to the satisfaction of the District
Magistrate, Chandigarh. In this case, the Jail authorities had declined to release
the prisoner on parole on the ground that he had been convicted by the Court
Martial and therefore, civil authorities had no jurisdiction to release him.

The Supreme Court in its decision in Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka, has

observed that overcrowding in prisons can be considerably reduced by release
of prisoners on parole, which is a conditional release of an individual from
prison after he has served part of the sentence imposed upon him.

Recommending liberal use of parole, the Court referred to the Report of All
India Committee on jail reforms headed by Justice A. N. Mulla. (1980-83)
wherein the Committee stated that the effect of parole is premature release
which is an accepted mode of incentive to a prisoner, as it saves him from the
extra period of incarceration and at the same time also helps in his reformation
and rehabilitation.

In the case of State of Haryana v. Hasmat, the accused (respondent) along with
some others was found guilty of offences punishable under sections 302, 307,
148 read with section 149 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life. During the pendency of his appeal he was in jail and was allowed the
benefit of release on parole three times and had not misused liberties during
parole period. On this ground he contended that he should be given the benefit
of suspension of sentence during pendency of his appeal and be released on bail.
Rejecting the plea of the respondent (accused), the Supreme Court observed:—

“Section 389 of Cr. P.C. deals with suspension of execution of sentence (in this
case life imprisonment) pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail.
There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the
essential ingredients of section 389 Cr. P.C. is the requirement for the Court to
record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of the sentence or order
appealed. If he is in confinement, the said Court can direct that he be released
on bail or on his own bond. This clearly indicates that an order directing
suspension of sentence during appeal and grant of bail should not be passed as a
matter of routine.”

In this case, the High Court had granted bail primarily on the ground that after
conviction, the respondent (accused) had been granted parole on three occasions
and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty during the period of parole.
But the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that
in case of offence like murder, the Court should consider the relevant factors
like the manner in which the offence was committed and its gravity etc. and
then consider whether after being convicted for the offence will it be desirable
to order his release on bail.

The High Court had not considered this aspect at all. The Court further referred
to its earlier rulings in Vijay Kumar v. Narendra & others, and Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and another, wherein it was held that in cases involving
conviction under section 302, IPC suspension of sentence and bail should be
granted only in very exceptional cases.

The question for decision before the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum, related to entertaining applications of prisoners
whose appeals for bail etc. were pending or those whose bail applications had
been rejected and they had moved the High Court in appeal against such


In the instant case, the respondent, a woman accused was convicted for an
offence of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for life. She had filed an application for release under
the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners’ Release on Probation Act, 1954 and the rules
framed there under in 1964 (Rule 2 in this case).

The circular dated 3-8-2005 issued by Inspector General of Prisons stated that
prisoners whose appeals are pending before the Appellate Court are not entitled
to be considered for the purpose of release on probation. The respondent’s
prayer was therefore, rejected by the Probation Board on 8-8-2005 with the
approval of the State Government. In appeal, the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh upheld the decision of the State Government and maintained the
legality of the circular issued by the Inspector General Prisons.

In appeal against the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court referred to
its earlier ruling in the case of Arvind Yadav v. Ramesh Kumar and others, and
held that, “the convicts have no indefeasible right to be released. The Probation
Board and the State Government are required to take into consideration the
relevant factors before deciding or declining the release and the facts of
individual case are to be taken into consideration for deciding the issue of

In Arvind Yadav’s case the accused Ramesh Kumar was accused in 14 cases
filed under various sections of IPC and the manner of committing murder was
gruesome and brutal and therefore, he was rightly denied release on probation.
The rules provide for a detailed procedure for consideration of application for
release of prisoners on probation.

Once rejected, an application for release can be filed again after two years. The
Board consists of Home Secretary of the State, I.G. Prisons or Deputy I.G. and
another member. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the rejection of
respondent’s application for release in the instant case and appeal was

Pragati Ghosh , “Judicial Trend of Parole System in India” shareyouressays via
accessed on 2.04.14 at 6:13pm



In Indian law or any other country law, there are different provisions for
different crimes. But after punishment, there are laws to get parole or furlough
on certain conditions. But do courts and judges truly follow these laws or are
the laws under them? Laws are in the pockets of big brands, fame and
politicians, it seems. Rules are rules, may be sometime rules need to be
amended for the reason of justice not for the reason of favoring the big stars and
criminals of fame.

Condition of law is different in our country and the situation becomes worst on
the name of law. Look at the cases of arm act accused Sanjay Dutt and his
punishment. As we are aware, he is one of the finest actor of the country and
belong to the film star family and also have politicians in family. So that means
he is powerful man, Right. Dutt was arrested in April 1993, under the provision
of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA). He was accused of
terrorist interaction and illegal possession of a 9mm pistol and an AK-56 assault
rifle. Before this crime Dutt was also involved in some illegal possession of
drugs substances in 1982 for 5 months. That means, by any mean Sanjay Dutt
was/is a criminal and punished by the Supreme Court of India, in a judgment on
last year 21st March 2013. After the hearing of case under TADA, Sanjay Dutt
spent some time in jail as he was the culprit due to arm act. Finally Supreme
Court of India, in a judgment found him guilty of illegal possession of arms and
sentenced him to five years imprisonment.

Look at the scenario, from 1993 to 2013, our Judiciary takes 20 years time to
find guilty on this horrifying crime of Arm’s act. Why this type of popular case
takes ages to be punished? How we can trust on our judiciary for any other
cases. Is judiciary not independent? Is law, depend on person to person? In our
democratic country, if you have tag of big fame, you have to right to do any
crime, as our politicians, our law makers are there to save you. So if you are
Sanjay Dutt or Vikas Yadav, son of don of western Uttar Pradesh and Politician.
Vikas Yadav, the main accused of Nitish Katara murder case and after seven
years of trial case, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on 30 May 2008 and
he has been convicted of criminal offenses for obstruction of justice in the


murder of Jessica Lal. Any laws are under your hand and gang, if you are from
this type of family. And finally after many years of fighting, when they are
behind the bars, they have option to opt Parole. How people misuse the term of
law in the name of fame? Its not about these two cases. Its about every known
cases. Why accused and sufferers not get justice?

According to Indian law on Parole:

Parole is a legal sanction that lets a prisoner leave the prison for a short
duration, on the condition that s/he behaves appropriately after release and
reports back to the prison on termination of the parole period. While parole is
granted to a prisoner detained for any offence irrespective of the duration of

Under Indian jail laws, a prisoner may be released on parole in certain

emergency situations, which includes the following health-related concerns:

1.Complete and incurable blindness.

2. Advanced pulmonary tuberculosis, which incapacitates the prisoner from
committing further crimes of the nature for which s/he was sentenced.
3. If he is dangerously ill, and is likely to have a better recovery outside prison.
4. If he has become mentally unstable and requires treatment in an asylum.

Additionally, a prisoner in India may be granted parole in the following

exceptional cases:

1.To perform funeral rites.

2. To visit a sick or dying member of the family.
3. To attend important functions, such as marriage of son, daughter, brother or
4. To construct a house or repair a badly damaged house.
These are rules followed for parole to any criminal. Sanjay Dutt granted parole
again and again on the name of health issues and his wife’s surgery. And Vikas
Yadav has come out on parole more than 80 times, taking it to 5 times a month.

we are always talking about how to reduce crime or how to fight with these kind
of crimes. But when it comes to rules, laws, regulations, we easily amend them
in favour of powerful criminals.. Its also a game, in which poor is suffering and


rich is enjoying. When general people want parole on correct terms, they will
not able to avail it. I think, we should think this again for the correct
implementation of rules and regulations and stick on punishment verdict by the
Supreme Court of India.5

Manu Sharma's parole has, understandably, triggered great outrage. He was

granted parole by the Delhi government, despite valid objections raised by
Delhi Police. He had applied for three months' parole because he wanted to
attend the religious rites of his grandmother, take care of his ailing mother and
look after the family's business interests.

Parole is the supervised release of a prisoner before the completion of his

sentence in prison. It differs from amnesty or commutation in sentence in that
all parolees are considered to be serving the sentences and may be returned to
prison if they violate the conditions of parole. Parole can also be granted on
medical or humanitarian grounds to enable the jail inmate to maintain continuity
with the family and save him from the evil effects of continuous prison life.
Conditions of parole include things such as obeying the law, refraining from use
of drugs or alcohol and maintaining contacts with the parole officer.

Under the provisions of jail manuals in most states, parole is granted by the
head of the prison administration, viz, the IG or DG of prisons after receiving
verification reports from the police. But in Delhi as per its jail manual, only the
Lt. Governor is entitled to decide on the application. The Delhi High Court, a
while back, directed the Central government to empower the senior officers of
Tihar jail to grant parole to prisoners to facilitate their quick release. Manu
Sharma's application was sent to Delhi police for verification. In a very
objective report, Delhi police submitted that Manu Sharma's grandmother had
passed away in April and there was no immediate reason for him to attend the
rituals. The report also said that his mother was not suffering from any serious
ailment and the business interests were not affected by his absence. Sharma was
initially granted bail for one month, which was later extended for another month
(till November 22, 2009). The parole condition required him to remain in
Chandigarh, but Sharma was partying with friends in hotel bars in Delhi.

“Parole: Opportunity Mis-used Often” crimeindelhi via accessed on 2.04.14 at 7:35pm


Parole and Probation : A comparative study

Probation is part of a sentence for committing a crime. Essentially, a judge

decides how much time a person must serve in jail, guided by the laws of the
state, and how much time afterincarceration is spent on probation. Sometimes a
judge will only sentence a person convicted of a minor crime to one to several
years of probation.

While on probation, a condition of the sentence may be to have weekly or

monthly meetings with a probation officer. Other conditions might be applied; a
person might not be able to drive, for example, or might have a curfew. He or
she must also not commit further crimes while on probation, or it may be
violated. This empowers the courts to send the person to jail to serve the length
of the original sentence, and to serve any additional time for new crimes.

Probation is a type of criminal sentence that permits the offender to remain in

the community setting in lieu of serving time in a jail environment. The
defendant remains free so long as the terms of the probation are being met.
Conditions of probation might include reporting to a probation officer on a
regular schedule; refraining from the use or abuse of alcohol and/or drugs;
maintaining regular employment or continuing with schooling; not changing a
residence without advanced notice and permission; and not committing a
criminal offense while on probation. The particular conditions of probation may
vary widely from one defendant to another depending on the offense committed,
the offender's criminal history, the presence of victims and how they were
harmed, and other specific facts and circumstances.6

Parole, on the other hand, is granted to people who are in jail. With many
crimes, sentencing has a maximum amount of years imposed. These years in
jail, however, can be shortened if the person convicted of a crime behaves well
in prison. After a time, a person in prison “comes up” for parole.

“ What Are the Major Differences Between Probation and Parole” attorneys via accessed on
2.04.14 at 8:25pm


The decision to grant a person parole is made by a parole board. If the person
has done well in prison, and early release is not contested, the board can shorten
prison time. There is great motivation to release nonviolent offenders, since
many jails are overcrowded.

When a person receives parole, he or she is often bound by many conditions.

For example, committing a crime violates the terms of parole and can result in a
return to prison. Even failing to regularly meet with a parole officer, (also called
a probation officer), or leaving the jurisdiction without appropriate application
and notice can be seen as violating parole. Aviolation means going back to
prison to serve out the rest of one’s sentence.

Being on parole is quite similar to being on probation. The person expects a

greater degree of supervision and is bound by the parole board or the court to
behave in an exemplary fashion. Conditions of both must be met or one may
end up in jail. Because of these similarities, the terms are often confused.7




Release of prisoners on parole is a reformative and rehabilitative measure which

seeks to protect society and assist the prisoner in re-adjusting himself to a
normal free-life in the community. Parole is an individualized method of
treatment of offenders who respond favourably to the disciplined life inside the
Parole is one of the correctional schemes. The life in a prison is so rigid and
restrictive that it hardly offers any opportunity for the offender to rehabilitate
himself. In suitable cases, the inmates of a prison should be released under
proper supervision from the prison institution after serving a part of their
sentence. This may serve a useful purpose for their rehabilitation in the society
as a normal law abiding citizen.
Parole enables the prisoner a free social life yet retaining some effective control
over him. Release on parole is a wing of the reformative process and is expected
to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into useful citizen.

All fixed term sentences of imprisonment above 18 months are subject to

release on licence. Parole is an act of grace and not as a matter of right and the
convict prisoner may be released on condition that he abides the promise. It is a
provisional release from confinement but is deemed to be a part of the
imprisonment. The release on parole does not change the status of the prisoner.

The urgent need of the hour is for Police officials to acknowledge that the
Parole system is being misused, and ensure that Parole laws are properly
enforced in prisons across the country.

Hence my hypothesis regarding my project topic i.e. Necessity of Parole : its

use & misuse was correct that Parole is used by the prisoners for their necessary
release but Sometimes parole is also misused by the prisoners.




 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Prisons Act, 1894


 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, (New Delhi: Bharat Law House,
 Pillai, Criminal Law, (New Delhi: Butterworths, 2000).
 K.D.Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (New Delhi:
Butterworths, 1999
 Kelkar r.v, Criminal Procedure, Eastern Book Company, Delhi, 2011