Indian Parole System: A Review of Judicial Stand & Critical issues

ABSRACT:
Parole is a reforming process for prisoners to help them to come into the mainstream of life . It is
an instrument for social rehabilitation of the prisoners. The present paper reviews the concept of
parole and Indian parole system. Judicial stand on parole and various court decisions. It also
discusses steps to prevent misuse of parole and balancing social security and human rights
through parole is elaborated.
INTRODUCTION1
Parole has emerged as one of the most acceptable form of correctional devicein modern
penology. It has been universally recognised as one of the most appropriate methods of
treatments of offenders for their reformation and rehabilitation in the normal society after the
final release. Parole is an integral part of the correctional process. It is a kind of consideration
granted to the prisoners to help them to come back into the mainstream of life. It is nothing but
an instrument of social rehabilitation of the prisoner. In recent times, however, the concept has
seen a wide shift with parole been utilized by the rich and influential class to escape the prison
sentence. Thus, we have the infamous examples of Manu Sharma, Bibi Jagir Kaur or Bitti
Mohanty who are enjoying the intermittent bliss of free life, even after committing heinous
offences and conviction. In contrast, stands the lakhs of other prisoners, whose pleas of parole
fall in deaf ears, and being poor and uninfluential, they do not have means to utilize the process
or are unjustifiably refused the benefit on flimsy grounds. The present article is an attempt to
revisit the concept of parole, its underlying object, means and processes in the legal system and
finally, the issues which are of immediate concern in recent times. Parole gives a chance of
reformation to the prisoner. It can have a positive impact towards changing the prisoner’s
attitude to what they have done and make them come to accept that their behaviour was wrong.
Parole is a release procedure. The offender, after having served a part of his sentence in a
correctional institution, is released according to law from the prison or reformatory. Thus, the
simple meaning of the term 'parole' is a conditional release from prison. Parole ideally includes
treatment in the form of supervision, guidance and assistance. It has been rightly held that all
released prisoners can benefit from the guidance of parole officers, but the benefit that society

1
criminology, penology &victimology by prof.n.v.paranjape, 17th edition page no-586
itself would derive if all prisoners were kept under close surveillance during the period of
adjustment immediately following incarceration is also considerable.

CONCEPT AND PHILOSOPHY BEHIND PAROLE

Historically, parole is a concept known to military law and denotes release of a prisoner of war
on promise to return. These days parole has become an integral part of the Anglo American
criminal justice system, intertwined with evolution of changing attitudes of the society towards
crime and criminals. Parole as a technique of reformation and rehabilitation of the criminal
hardly has a history of more than 150 years. In India, it is comparatively a new development.
Thus, conceptualization of parole becomes necessary2.
The word ‘Parole’ comes from the French word “je donne ma parole” meaning ‘I give my
word’, while the dictionary definition is ‘word of honour’. The term ‘parole’ was first coined in a
correctional context in 1847 by Samvel G. Howe, a Boston penal reformer. Later, Parole was
introduced by Brockway Zebulon in the year 1876 as a way to reduce jail overcrowding and at
the same time as a way to rehabilitate prisoners by encouraging them to win their way out of
prison through good behaviour. Parole is rewards granted to prisoners for good behaviour, they
entail a reduction in the number of years and months one serves in prison. Parole had its root in
the Positivist School. The Classical School of thought opined that people are free to choose their
own conduct. While committing any crime, an offender always calculates his gain, his pleasure,
at the cost of other’s pain. So he must be punished. But the Positivist school argued that it is the
circumstance which forces anybody to commit crime. So he must be rehabilitated. From there the
thought of parole arose. It provides a second chance to the prisoner to rehabilitate himself. The
offender might have committed an offence, but it is not desirable that he always be labelled and
must not be given any chance to rehabilitate himself. Its objectives are twofold: the rehabilitation
of the offender and the protection of society. It is a means of helping the inmate to become a law-
abiding citizen, while at the same time ensuring that he does not misbehave or return to crime.
Parole ideally includes treatment in the form of supervision, guidance and assistance. It has been
rightly held that all released prisoners can benefit from the guidance of parole officers, but the
benefit that society itself would derive if all prisoners were kept under close surveillance during
the period of adjustment immediately following incarceration is also considerable. A prisoner

2
criminology, penology &victimology by prof.n.v.paranjape, 17th edition page no-587
who has spent a decade inside has lost touch with the everyday world of transport, shopping and
renting, but has gained a set of different everyday living skills relevant to prison life that needs to
be unlearned. Parole gives a chance of reformation to the prisoner. It can have a positive impact
towards changing the prisoner’s attitude to what they have done and make them come to accept
that their behaviour was wrong3.

Definition and Nature of Parole

Parole is a release procedure. The offender, after having served a part of his sentence in a
correctional institution, is released according to law from the prison or reformatory. Thus, the
simple meaning of the term 'parole' is a conditional release from prison. According to the
Encyclopaedia of Criminology Parole is a method of conditional release of persons sentenced
or committed to penal or correctional institutions after serving a portion of the sentence or term
imposed by the Court. According to Encyclopaedia Americana, Parole a term with several
applications, all of which bear some relation to the meaning of the French term parole (spoken
word). In criminology, a parole is the release of a prisoner before he has served his full sentence,
conditioned on his good behaviour and his regular reports to a so called parole officer for the
balance of the term of his sentence. '' In Law, the term most often appears without 'e' in the
phrase 'by Parole' (unwritten) as in a verbal agreement or an oral contract. At one time a prisoner
of war could be released from captivity on his signing a written pledge not to bear arms against
the detaining power for the remainder of the war, or until properly exchanged Rules governing
parole procedure, substantially, those formulated by International agreement in 1907, appeared
as late as 1940 in the United States War Department Field Walter C Reckless.4
As defined by J. L. Gillin, "parole is the release from a penal or reformative institution, of an
offender who remains under the control of correctional authorities in an attempt to find out
whether he is fit to live in the free society without supervision. It is the last stage of correctional
scheme of which probation may probably be the first. The life in a prison is so rigid and
restrictive that it hardly offers any opportunity for the offender to rehabilitate himself. It is
therefore necessary that in suitable cases the inmates should be released under proper supervision
from the prison institution after serving a part of their sentence. This may serve a useful purpose

3
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
4
https://sentencingproject.org
for their rehabilitation in the society. This object is accomplished by the system of parole which
aims at restoring the inmate to society as a normal law-abiding citizen.
Another criminologist Donald Taft5 characterises parole as a release method which retains
some control over prisoners, yet permits them more normal social relationships in the community
and provides constructive aid at the time they most need it. According to him, "parole" is a
release from prison after part of the sentence has been served, the prisoner still remaining in
custody and under stated conditions until discharged and liable to return to the institution for
violation of any of these conditions.
Dr. Sutherland has defined parole as the act of releasing or the status of being released from a
penal or reformatory institution in which one has served part of his maximum sentence, on
condition of maintaining good behaviour and remaining in the custody and sander the guidance
of the institution or some other agency approved by the State until a final discharge is granted.
As a result of the introduction of parole into penal system, all fixed term.“ sentences of
imprisonment above 18 months are subject to release on licence. Parole is taken as an act of
grace and not as a matter of right and the convict prisoner may be released on condition that he
abides by the promise. It is a provisional release from confinement but is deemed to be a part of
the imprisonment. Release on parole is a part of the reformative process and is expected to
provide opportunity for the prisoner to transform himself into useful citizen.
The Supreme Court in Smt. Poonam Lata v. Wadhawan & others6 has clarified that parole is a
grant of partial liberty or lessening of restrictions to a convict prisoner but release on parole does
not, in any way, change the status of the prisoner.
In yet another case, Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana the Supreme Court observed that
generally speaking, the act of granting parole is an administrative action and parole is a form of
temporary release from prison custody, which does not suspend the sentence of the period of
detention, but provides conditional release from the prison and changes the mode of undergoing
the sentence. Thus, parole is not a suspension or curtailment of sentence originally imposed by
the Court, but it is only a substitution, during continuance of parole, of lower type of punishment
by confining the parolee in legal custody, and under the control of warden, within specified
bounds outside the prison.

5
criminology, penology & victimology by prof.N.v.paranjape, 17th edition page no-587
6
1987 AIR 1383, 1987 SCR (2)1123
Sir Robert Cross has observed that parole is the release of a long term prisoner from a penal or
correctional institution after he has served a part of his sentence under the continuous custody of
the State and under conditions that permit his incarceration in the event of misbehaviour.
However, he continues to remain sentenced even during the period of his parole.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PAROLE
There are a number of theories which state as to how and why parole as a means of reformation
has come into being and provide the rationale in introducing the same into the criminal justice
system.
Grace Theory: The theory draws its vitality from Justice Cardozo’s famous dictum in Escoe v
Zerbst that “probation or suspension of sentence comes as an act of grace”. Under the grace
theory, both the establishment of a parole system and the release of an individual prisoner are
gratuitous acts by a merciful executive. Parole is analogized to a pardon, the grant of which was
“an act of grace”. Using the grace theory, the courts have been able to dismiss the possibility of
prisoners’ rights to be paroled and to minimize the legal protections accorded a parolee’s limited
freedom. “When the board grants a parole, it does so as a matter of grace and not as a duty”.
According to the theory, since parole is a gift, it may be conditioned as the grantor pleases. Thus,
in permitting revocation of the gift, whatever the grounds of revocation, the courts can maintain
a defensible position.

Contract Theory: When the parolee leaves the prison, he often signs a form setting forth the
conditions of his release. This formality has given rise to the contract theory. The parolee accepts
the conditions of his parole just as a party to a business contract agrees to be legally bound by its
terms. Because he has accepted the parole terms, whatever rights they cut off, the parolee is
stopped from complaining about those terms. As all of the meanings derive from the French
parole meaning ‘word’, the term came to be associated with the release of prisoners based on
their word of honor to abide by certain restrictions. Consistent with the contract concept,
theoretically, the parolee may reject the proffered terms. The rejection option finds its origin in
United States v. Wilson The Court noted that acceptance was a requisite of an effective pardon.
Custody Theory: Parole statutes specifically state that parolees remain in the legal custody of
the warden, parole board, or other agent of the executive. From this, courts have derived the
custody theory. Parole “is in legal effect imprisonment”, and the parolee is “constructively a
prisoner…fettered by the conditions and restrictions of his parole”. The parolee is in
“substantially the same position as a ‘trusty’. A violation of the conditions of his release
relegates him to the status of an escaped prisoner. As are the other theories, the custody theory is
often used to insulate parole matters from judicial examination and review on both non
constitutional and constitutional grounds. The parolee is limited to the status of an inmate, and
parole is the administrative exercise of the prison discipline authority, subject to the wide
discretion granted prison officials when dealing with persons committed to their custody.
Exhausted Rights: The exhausted rights theory is a concomitant of the custody theory. Its
origins lie in the view that parole is a part of the prison system, and not a part of the sentencing
process. After the accused is convicted by a trial in which all his rights are protected,
“constitutional guarantees do not extend to a later enforcement of punishment already validly
imposed.” In short, the theory posits that the accused is entitled to a fixed quantum of due
process protection, and that this is satisfied by his original trial and sentence. The prisoner’s due
process rights are then exhausted until the end of his maximum sentence. This theory is clearly
addressed to the “criminal case” and “criminal prosecutions” applications of the fifth and sixth
amendments, and seeks to insulate the parole process from applications of the amendments by
denying that post-conviction disposition is within their scope.
Parens Patriae: Closely tied to custody is the parens patriae theory. Based on the rehabilitation
model of correction, parens patriae limits the rights of prisoners and parolees on the basis of a
perceived need for great discretion and flexibility in rehabilitating the parolee. It assumes that
“the Board of Parole as an identity of interest with the parolee to foster his rehabilitation”
because one need not be protected from another who has an identity of interest, the theory serves
to insulate the parolee from judicial concern. This rationale and the consequences of this theory
are comparable to those long applied in the juvenile law area, but rejected not many years ago in
In re Gault.

PAROLE IN INDIA
In India, the grant of Parole is largely governed by the rules made under the Prison Act, 1894 and
Prisoner Act, 1900. Each of the States has its own parole rules, which have minor variations with
each other. There are two types of parole- custody and regular. The custody parole is granted in
emergency circumstances like death in the family, serious illness or marriage in the family. It is
limited to a time span of six hours during which the prisoner is escorted to the place of visit and
return there from. The grant of parole is subject to verification of the circumstances from the
concerned police station and is granted by the Superintendent of Jail. Regular Parole is allowed
for a maximum period of one month, except in special circumstances, to convicts who have
served at least one year in prison. It is granted on certain grounds such as:
(1) Serious Illness of a family member

(2) Accident or Death of a family member

(3) Marriage of a member of the family

(4) Delivery of Child by wife of the convict

(5) Maintain family or social ties

(6) Serious damage to life or property of the family of convict by natural calamities

(7) Pursue filing of a Special Leave Petition.

Certain categories of convicts are not eligible for being released on parole like prisoners involved
in offences against the State, or threats to national security, non-citizens of India etc. People
convicted of murder and rape of children or multiple murders etc. are also exempted except at
the discretion of the granting authority.
As per procedure, after an inmate seeks parole, jail authority (Superintendent) asks for a report
from the police station that had made the arrest. The lreport, with all other papers like medical
report (in case of illness being reason for parole), recommendation of the Superintendent is then
sent to the Deputy Secretary, Home (General), State Government which decides on the
application. In some States, the application along with the police report and recommendation is
sent to the Inspector General of Prison, which is then considered by the District Magistrate. The
State Government takes the decision in consultation with the District Magistrate. A prisoner who
overstays parole is deemed to have committed an offence under Section 224 Indian Penal Code,
1860 and may be prosecuted with Government sanction and forfeit all remissions earned.
 JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS GRANT OF PAROLE
Penological innovation in the shape of parole is claimed to be a success in rehabilitation and
checking recidivism. That’s the view of the Indian judiciary. In Mohinder Singh parole has been
defined as “a conditional release of a prisoner, generally under supervision of a parole officer,
who has served part of the term for which he was sentenced to prison”. Parole relates to
executive action taken after the door has been closed on a convict. During parole period there is
no suspension of sentence but the sentence is actually continuing to run during that period also.
In Babu Singh and Ors. v State of U.P.7 Justice Krishna Iyer remarked that “It is not out of
place to mention that if the State takes up a flexible attitude it may be possible to permit long
spells of parole, under controlled conditions, so that fear that the full freedom if bailed out, might
be abused may be eliminated by this experimental measure, punctuated by reversion to prison.
Unremitting insulation in the harsh and hardened company of prisoners leads to many
unmentionable vices that humanizing interludes of parole are part of the compassionate
constitutionalism of our system”
In Babulal Das v The State of West Bengal,8 the Court opined that persons kept incarcerated
and embittered without trial should be given some chance to reform themselves by reasonable
recourse to the parole powe calculated risks, by release for short periods may, perhaps, be a
social gain, the beneficent jurisdiction being wisely exercised. Again in Inder Singh v The State
(Delhi Administration) the Court has emphasized on the need for liberal use of parole even in
the case of heinous crimes.
In the recent case of C.A. Pious v The State of Kerala and Anrs9 while discussing the scope of
the term ‘life imprisonment’, the apex court held “In our view, penal humanitarianism and
rehabilitative desideratum warrant liberal paroles, subject to security safeguards, and other
humanizing strategies for inmates so that the dignity and worth of the human person are not
desecrated by making mass jails anthropoid zoos. Human rights awareness must infuse
institutional reform and ssearch for alternatives”. It added that “Section 433A Cr PC does not
forbid parole or other release within the 14-year span. So to interpret the section as to intensify
inner tension and intermissions of freedom is to do violence to language and liberty.”

7
1978 AIR 527, 1978 SCR (2) 777
8
1975 AIR 606, 1975 SCR (3) 193
9
(1981 (1) SCC
 CRITICAL ISSUES IN PAROLE
Two significant issues arise in case of Parole in contemporary India- one, the refusal of grant of
parole on insufficient grounds and second, the misuse of parole. A glance at the statics of Prison
Population in the year 2011 reveals that there are about 128592 convicts lodged in different
prisons in India. These persons have been found guilty of different offences under the Penal
Code and special laws. Out of that, 28581 have been temporarily released in the year 2011, just
about 22% of the prison population. Some states have recorded an appreciable number of
released convicts like Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, while other States have recorded
substantially low numbers in this regard. Though the release of prisoners is dependent upon
several factors, it is important to emphasize that probably the provision of parole is not being
utilized to the full.
MISUSE OF PAROLE: A ROUTE OF ESCAPE AND REOFFENDING
While the notion of parole has been emphasized and re-emphasized by the Judiciary and
penologists alike to reduce the ills of prison life, whether parole really serves a purpose or
provides a means to escape becomes a significant question. The recent case of Manu Sharma
drew the ire of the entire nation towards a casual prison administration, and an even more casual
State Government, which granted and vociferously supported the grant of Parole to a convict in
the Jessica Murder case.
In Sidharth Vashisht Manu Sharma v The State10 Manu Sharma murdered Jessica on
30thApril, 1999 at about 2 a.m. Manu belonged to a rich influential political family. On
20thDecember, 2008 he was sentenced with life imprisonment and fined by the Delhi High
Court. On 24thSeptember, 2009, he was granted parole for one month. Later it was extended to
one more month. Manu Sharma asked for parole on three grounds: to attend religious rites for his
late grandmother, to tend to his ageing mother and, as the largest shareholder of Piccadilly
Industries, to take care of the family’s business interest. He returned to Jail on 10thNovember,
2009, only after he was traced to a Delhi pub enjoying his night life with friends, drinks and
dance. Media flashed the same in national newspapers. Meanwhile, his (ill) mother was found
attending programs and functions in different parts of the capital. Investigation further revealed
that his grandmother passed away on April, 2008 and he was appealing for parole on that very
ground after one year and seven months of her passing away. Again on November 2011, the

10
9 April, 2010 SCC
High Court granted him five days parole to attend his brother’s wedding, but on the condition
that he should not visit any clubs or discos. “Interestingly, the parole was granted despite Sharma
violating his earlier parole. Justice VK Shali, while issuing notice to the Delhi Police on
Sharma’s application, had mentioned his conduct while he was on parole pointing out that he
visited discotheques in violation of parole conditions. ‘He need not attend all (wedding
functions),’Shali had commented earlier while rejecting his request for parole from 10-20
November. The Delhi Police, however, did a U-turn on their earlier stand of opposing parole for
Sharma. Senior lawyer Pawan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, did not oppose Sharma’s
parole plea but told the court that they had “no objection” if he gave an undertaking to the court
that he would not leave Karnal and Ambala. In its earlier affidavit submitted to the court last
week, the Delhi Police had objected to Sharma’s plea pointing out that his past conduct did not
entitle him to parole.”The day Manu Sharma sauntered out of Delhi’s Tihar jail on parole, he left
behind over a dozen irate, but helpless prisoners. They too had applied for parole, much before
him; their reasons were as varied as a marriage in the family, the settlement of a property dispute
and the need to tend to sick family members. However, there’s been no word on their
applications.Reportedly, till September 15, 2009, the Delhi Government had granted parole to
only 11 out of 132 applicants.
Another case is Bibi Jagir’s Kaur : Bibi Jagir was jailed for her role in her daughter’s
kidnapping. The murder charges against her had been dropped. She was sentenced to 5 years
imprisonment. She was granted parole just after 4 months of her imprisonment. It was reported
that preferential treatment had been extended to her as she was the former Cabinet Minister of
Punjab
The latest case on parole is Bitti Mohanty case. The convict, in the instant case, the son of a
DGP, Orissa, was sentenced for rape of a German national. He was sentenced to seven years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine. In November 2006, he was granted fifteen days parole to
visit his ailing mother. At that moment his father stood as his surety. However, soon thereafter,
he escaped and his father pleaded ignorance about his whereabouts. A significant period of seven
years elapsed, after which on a tip off, the police was able to arrest him from Kerala in March,
2013. The convict had, by then, changed his identity, and refused to reveal himself as Biti
Mohanty. His father, seconded him, refusing to accept that the person arrested was his son. A
court has recently ordered the DNA profiling of the convict to establish his identity.
An audit finding of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) also showed how parole granted to
prisoners had not only been abused but in a majority of the cases jailbirds had made it a favourite
escape route. The auditor called for records from Amritsar central jail and from four
Superintendents of Police and found that more than 8,200 prisoners convicted for serious crimes
under NDPS Act, murder, rioting, armed with deadly weapons etc., and released on parole
between May 2001 and May 2008, did not surrender even after expiry of their parole period.
Looking at the seriousness of the issue, CAG brought the matter to the notice of the Centre when
it found that late reporting of non-surrender of prisoners by the SPs coupled with inaction on the
part of SPs, SHOs and DMs facilitated the offenders to misuse the facility and that it was
becoming almost a trend. The police’s record of tracking parole jumpers is also dismal. In
Maharashtra, only 310 were re-arrested, in Punjab, 80 and in UP, 14 between 2007 and 2011.
“Jumping parole is no big deal. Even those convicted for hard crimes are easily able to obtain no-
objection certificates about their character, and get parole. From there, it is a short step to not
report back to prison,” says a senior IPS office.Parole also provides a dangerous opportunity to a
criminal to engage in criminal activities while on parole. As in Saibanna v State of Karnataka
11, the appellant killed his first wife and was serving his life sentence. He was released for a
month on parole during which time he killed his second wife and child inflicting as many as 21
injuries on the body of the person. The Supreme Court agreed that the case at hand was a “rarest
of rare case” involving pre-planned brutal murders without provocation and that the only
condign punishment was sentence of death. In yet another case of Krishan v State of Haryana
punishment of life imprisonment was awarded where the murder was committed while the
accused was already undergoing life imprisonment and was on parole.
REFUSAL OF PAROLE: EXECUTIVE ARBITRARINESS AND APATHY
While this is the picture on one side, on the other, stands the dismal apathy of the State
Governments to grant parole to prisoners. “Release on parole is a wing of the reformative
process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful
citizen. Parole is a grant of partial liberty of lessening of restrictions to a convict prisoner”.
However, in this country, there are no statutory provisions dealing with the question of grant of
parole. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contain any provision for grant of parole.
By administrative instructions, however, rules have been framed in various States, regulating the

11
21 march 2005 Karnataka HC
grant of parole. Thus, the action for grant of parole is generally speaking an administrative
action.
Parole Rules or administrative instructions, framed by the Government are purely administrative
in character and for securing release on parole, a convict has, to approach the Government
concerned or the jail authorities. Unfortunately, however, in most cases, the executive acts in a
mere mechanical manner, without application of mind and appreciation of facts and refuses the
chance of parole to the convicts. The police reports are also prepared without due consideration
to ground realities and more often, indicate a threat to law and order or breach of peace, without
substantiating the grounds for such apprehension. Thus, in Asha Ram v State of Rajasthan12, a
letter was addressed to the Court by the convict that he was behind bars for a considerable period
and his plea for parole was rejected in view of a baseless police report. The Court examined the
report sent by the Superintendent of Police and concluded that the same was vague and
uncertain. “It is well settled that the object for grant of parole is to make necessary efforts to
rehabilitate a convict-prisoner in the main stream of society. Maintaining of law and order and
prevention of breach of peace are the aspects required to be taken care of by the authorities
concerned but on vague and uncertain suggestions, the petitioner cannot be denied parole when
he is otherwise eligible and entitled therefor.” The Court accordingly ordered his release for a
period of 20 days with conditions In Kesar Singh Guleria v State of Himachal Pradesh and
Ors.13 referring to the grounds for declining parole the Court proceeded to hold that a mere
disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not the same as disturbance which subverts
the public order. An apprehended breach of peace or the possibility of the prisoner committing a
crime during the parole period, without anything more, would constitute a law and order problem
and not a problem touching public order. It would thus appear that “public order” comprehends
disorder of lesser gravity than those affecting “security of the State” and that “law and order”
comprehends disorders of lesser gravity than those affecting “public order”. In cases involving
problems of law and order, the proper course to be adopted is not to give an opinion that the
request for release be rejected but to advice that the release be ordered subject to appropriate
conditions, such as, that surveillance be kept over the prisoner during the period of his temporary
release and that he asked to report to the nearest police station at appropriate intervals.

12
1994 Cri LJ 2431
13
2017 (10) SCC 244
Laying down the criteria for probable refusal of parole, the Delhi High Court specified the
following:-

i) A reasonable apprehension, based upon material available with the Government such as the
circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by him and the other cases
if any in which he is involved, that the petitioner, if released on bail may not return back to Jail
to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence awarded to him;

ii) A serious apprehension of breach of law and order or commission of another offence by the
petitioner if he comes out on parole;

iii) Past conduct of the petitioner such as jumping the bail or parole granted earlier to him;

iv) A reasonable possibility of the petitioner trying to intimidate or harm those who have
deposed against him or their relatives.

The Court emphasized that it is neither possible nor desirable to exhaustively lay down all such
grounds as would justify denial of parole in a particular case. Each case has to be examined by
the Government dispassionately and with an open mind, taking into consideration all relevant
facts and circumstances[li]. In no case, a mechanical rejection of request for release on parole,
such as for breach of apprehension of peace, is warranted by law. The competent authority is
required to pass reasoned and speaking order, whenever it is to decline request for temporary
release specifying danger to the security of the State or of public order and the grounds on which
such opinion is held.
 HUMAN RIGHTS V. SOCIAL SECURITY

The grant of parole is not a matter of right, but a concession granted to the prisoner. The grant is
regulated by rules laid down in each state and is a part of executive discretion. Such discretion
cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, without due application of mind. It is important
that the power to release a prisoner is exercised objectively keeping in view the intention of the
legislature and the purpose of the same.
The grant of parole should be based on twin considerations- human rights and social security. It
is important to ensure that the convict is not deprived of his rights as a human being. The
imposition of sentence, in itself, impairs the exercise of basic rights granted under the
Constitution. The liberties and freedoms remain curtailed during the term of sentence. But that
should not take away the fundamental humane considerations of life such as attending to family
members in need or an opportunity of happy reunion with family and friends. Long years of
incarceration without breaks are more likely to dehumanize the mental frame, while temporary
release may soften the criminal proclivities.

ADVANTAGES OF PAROLE

The advantages of parole are as follows:-

(1) It avoids the evil consequences of long term imprisonment.

(2) It makes reformation and rehabilitation of offender possible.

(3) It avoids overcrowding in prisons and also reduces financial burden on state.

(4) The technique is in consonance with welfare state.

(5) It includes punishment as well as treatment. Thus, deterrent element is also present.

(6) Parole provides an opportunity for the offenders to attempt adjustment to the community
under the guidance of the parole officer. He is expected to obey certain rules that restrict his
activities and associates, to seek and retain employment and to secure the advise of his parole
officer. The community is partially protected from further criminal activities during the parole
period as the offender may be immediately returned to prison without a trial until the expiration
of his original sentence, if he commits another crime or breaks any of the rules imposed upon
him by the conditions.

(7) Parole relives the state and other agencies of certain financial burdens. Parole is less
expensive to the state than imprisonment; also during the period of parole the offender may
support any dependents who otherwise might be forced to seek public relief.

(8) It checks recidivism. Thus, parole is significant to society as a release method which retains
some control over prisoner, yet permits them more normal social relationship in the community
and provides constructive aid at the time when they must need it. Parole is the last and in many
ways most difficult stage in correctional treatment.

DISADVANTAGES OF PAROLE

Parole serves dual purpose, namely, public safety and reformation of prisoner. It suffers from
certain drawbacks.
(1) If selection is not proper, the purpose of parole is defeated.

(2) If Parole Board does not have man of character and integrity, the technique fails.

(3) If supervision is not effective, its violation becomes difficult to detect.

The disadvantages of parole lie chiefly in the present system of administration. Casual release of
prisoners on common sense basis, because of the pressure of family or political party, or to
relieve overcrowded conditions in prison is not conducive to effective readjustment of the
parolee. When the prisoner is released before the expiration of his term without personal
supervision, the effect of parole is merely to shorten the sentence. Again, the operation of the
system may be criticized when parole officers are untrained in social work or when they have
such heavy caseloads under their supervision that frequent individual attention does not seem
possible. The conditions of parole need revision since in some respects they run counter to
community modes, so that the parole who follows them finds himself unable to participate in
normal activities. If officers are better trained and in close touch with parolees they would be
able to help them to plan a constructive course avoiding formal restrictions.
 CONCLUSION
Parole is the release from a penal or reformative institution, of an offender who remains under
the control of correctional authorities in an attempt to find out whether he is fit to live in the free
society without supervision. It is the last stage of correctional scheme of which probation may
probably be the first. The life in a prison is so rigid and restrictive that it hardly offers any
opportunity for the offender to rehabilitate himself. The call for freedom and liberty is the
highest call of conscience. The concept of parole is in line with the call of human mind to break
free from the shackles of confinement and establish oneself in the warmth of societal love and
acceptance. However it is more easily said than done. While the philosophy behind parole has
been hailed and the judiciary has called for a liberal use of parole, the subjective satisfaction of
the executive in grant of the same has posed a major roadblock in recent times. Inconsistent
orders based on irrelevant grounds, callous police reports, misuse of the same to appease people
in power and position has devoid the concept of its underlying purpose and utility. Probably, the
fault lies, not in the underlying nobility with which it has been conceived, but in the manner of
its usage. The State has displayed a lack of sound consideration in matters of determination of
parole. It is important to revisit and relook at the existing system of Parole in India and give it
some serious consideration.
Thus In a nutshell we can say that Parole is a release from prison after part of the sentence has
been served, the prisoner still remaining in custody and under stated conditions until discharged
and liable to return to the institution for violation of any of these conditions.