ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

PROJECT TOPIC “CONSTITUTION AND COMPOSITION OF ICC”

Submitted to
Submitted by

Abhay Kumar Tiwari Dr. Bajirao Rajwade

22112 Administration of Criminal Justice
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project consumed a huge amount of work, research and dedication. I would like to express my deepest
appreciation to all those who provided me with the possibility to complete this project work.

Sincere gratitude to our Professor, whose superior knowledge and contribution in stimulating suggestions helped
me to coordinate my full effort in achieving the project.

Furthermore, I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of management of Army
Institute of Law, who gave the permission to use all required equipment and necessary material to complete this
task of research.

ABHAY KUMAR TIWARI

ROLL NO. 22112

INTRODUCTION
Parole meaning 
Parole means the release of a prisoner either temporarily for a special purpose or completely before
the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour.
The word parole is derived from the French phrase “je donne ma parole”, which means “I give my
word”. Parole is the privilege given to the prisoners to return to the society and socialise with families
and friends. It requires periodic reporting to the authorities for a set period of time. It is granted to that
person who has already served a portion of his or her sentence. It enables the prisoner to deal with
family matters and develop a good life for him or his family members.

Furlough meaning 
Furlough is given in cases of long-term imprisonment. A prisoner’s sentence is considered to be
remitted during his furlough time.It is to be allowed on a regular basis for no reason other than to
allow the prisoner to maintain familial and social relationships and to counteract the negative
consequences of long-term imprisonment. The right to be released on furlough is a substantial and
legal right of the prisoner, and it cannot be rejected if permitted by law.

TYPES OF PAROLE
1. Regular parole
In all other cases, the government has the option of considering applications for regular parole. The
following are some of the grounds on which the prisoner’s applications may be considered: 
 A family member’s serious sickness.
 Family members are in a critical state as a result of an accident or the loss of a family member.
 Marriage of any member of the convict’s family.
 Birth of a child by the convict’s wife if no other family member is available to care for the
spouse at home.
 Serious harm to the convict’s family’s life or property, including damage caused by natural
calamities.
 Maintaining social and familial relationships.
To file a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court of India in response to a High Court ruling
convicting or upholding a conviction, as the case may be.

2. Emergency parole or custody parole

Custody parole can only be given in emergency events and circumstances, such as the death of a
family member, the marriage of a family member, a family member’s major illness, or any other
emergency situation. During the custody parole, the prisoner must be escorted to and from the location
of visitation in order to ensure the prisoner’s safe custody. Such inmates would be considered to be in
prison for the duration of the sentence, and the time would be counted as time spent in prison. 
How parole and furlough are related to each other
The goal of both furlough and parole is to strike a balance between an offender’s rights and the rights
of society in order to prevent the inmate from causing more harm. Both are types of conditional
release, which means the offender must adhere to the terms of the order authorising furlough or parole,
such as reporting to a local police station at regular intervals. If the competent authority believes that
releasing the offender will be detrimental to society, both parole and furlough might be denied.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAROLE AND FURLOUGH

Serial
Parole  Furlough
no.

  1. It is not a right of the prisoner.  It is the right of the prisoner.

It is releasing a prisoner with a It is releasing a prisoner with remission of his

  2.
suspension of the sentence.  sentence.

In the case of short-term confinement, In the case of long-term confinement,

  3.
parole may be granted. Furlough may be granted.

  4. It can be granted a number of times. There is a limitation to grant furlough.

  5. Parole lasts for one month. Furlough lasts for fourteen days maximum.

It is to break the monotony of punishment so

  6. A specific justification is necessary.
no justification is needed.

  7. The days of leave aren’t included within The sentence of convict goes along with the
 the sentenced period. furlough period. 

It is granted by the Divisional It is granted by the Deputy Inspector General

  8. 
Commissioner. of Prisons.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAROLE AND BAIL

Many individuals mistakenly believe that parole and bail to be the same thing. However, there is a
distinction between the two, and they both have separate legal implications. Bail is well understood in
criminal law, and regulations relating to bail are found in Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
The power of the courts to grant bail is specified in Sections 436, 437, 438 and 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Section 436 deals with bail in bailable offences, Section 437 with when bail may
be taken in non-bailable offences, Section 438 with direction to provide bail to anyone apprehending
arrest, and Section 439 with the specific competence of the High Court and Court of Sessions to issue
bail. The result of granting bail is that the accused is released from internment, yet the Court retains
constructive authority over him through the sureties. If the accused is released on his own bail, such
constructive control could still be applied through the terms of the bond. 
The goal of both furlough and parole is to strike a balance between an offender’s rights and the rights
of society in order to prevent the inmate from causing more harm. Both are types of conditional
release, which means the offender must adhere to the terms of the order authorising furlough or parole,
such as reporting to a local police station at regular intervals. If the competent authority believes that
releasing the offender will be detrimental to society, both parole and furlough might be denied.
While distinguishing bail from parole, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in State of Haryana v.
Mohinder Singh (2000), that parole is a provisional release from confinement but is considered to be a
component of the imprisonment. Parole is an element of the rehabilitation process, and it is meant to
allow the offender to change his habits and become a contributing member of society. Parole is
essentially a grant of partial liberty or a reduction in limitations to a convicted prisoner, but it does not
modify the prisoner’s status. Rules are drafted to ensure that offenders released on parole are
monitored by parole officials and that if they fail to keep their promises, they are ordered to surrender
to custody.
ELIGIBILITY OF GRANT OF PAROLE
 The prisoner must have served at least one year in prison, in addition to the period spent in
remission.
 The prisoner’s behaviour should be good.
 The prisoner should not have committed any crime during his previous parole period.
 The previous parole should have been terminated a minimum of six months ago.
 The convict should not have violated any of the terms and restrictions of his or her previous
release.
 Instances of misuse of parole
The concept of parole has been highlighted by the judiciary and penologists to lessen the challenges of
prison life; however, whether parole truly serves a function or only serves as a means of escape
becomes a critical subject. In the following cases, there is clear evidence of misuse.
In the case of Central Bureau Investigation v. Bibi Jagir Kaur & Ors. (2018), Bibi Jagir’s Kaur was
sentenced to prison for her role in the murder of her daughter. The murder accusations against her
were dropped, and she was acquitted in 2018. She was sentenced to five years in prison. She was
granted parole after barely four months in prison. Because she was a former Punjab Cabinet Minister,
she was claimed to have gotten special treatment.
In the case of Sidharta Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010), while on parole, the
convict in the infamous Jessica Lal murder case was discovered clubbing. His justification for seeking
parole was the death of his grandmother, which occurred a year ago, and the illness of his mother,
which was also discovered to be a fabrication.

Important cases related to the concepts

In the case of Babulal Das v. the State of West Beng al (1975), though in the context of preventive
detention, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court observed about the need for parole
as follows: “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 the case of Kesar Singh Guleria v. the State of Himachal Pradesh (1984), the High Court held that
the act of releasing a prisoner on parole or furlough should not be viewed as an act of charity,
compassion, or clemency, but rather as an act in the discharge of a legal duty that must be carried out
upon the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions in order to achieve a salutary goal. 
In the case of Samir Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1975), the Supreme Court overturned a
Calcutta High Court order releasing a person detained under Section 3(1) of the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act on parole and rejected the argument that long-term preventive detention can be
self-defeating and criminally counterproductive.

CONCLUSION
It is clear that parole is unavoidable. A parole system appears to be rational and necessary in this
context. It’s a  support for a humanistic attitude to confined prisoners. The main goal of such
regulations is to provide criminals with a chance to work out their personal and familial difficulties
while also allowing them to stay connected to society. As a result, concepts like parole and furlough,
when handled wisely, can assist convicts/prisoners in effectively re-entering society and living law-
abiding lives.
Both lead to the convict being released out of the prison for a certain period. However, the aims,
objectives and the procedure followed for both are different. As this is managed by the prisons
department which comes under Entry 4, of the  State List under  Schedule 7 of the Constitution, every
state has its own rules for the grant of furlough in that state. However, the aims and objectives of
granting parole remain the same across the country. The only difference that can be seen is that
relating to the timeline and the conditions to be met to gain the advantage of furlough; this is evident
from the differing opinion of two high courts relating to the same issue (Dinesh Kumar vs State and
Juvan Singh Lakhubhai Jadeja vs State of Gujarat).