Parole is a vital humanitarian provision in criminal jurisprudence, designed to balance the needs of prison discipline with the rights of convicts to maintain familial, social, and emotional ties. It acts as a reformative tool, allowing convicts to temporarily leave prison under strict conditions for specific exigencies such as medical treatment, family illness, marriage, or funeral rites. However, confusion often arises when parole overlaps with concepts like suspension of sentence or bail, leading authorities to mistakenly conflate the two.
The recent ruling of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 101311 of 2025 (Eshwaramma v. State of Karnataka) emphatically clarified that a convict cannot be denied parole merely because he has not sought bail or suspension of sentence. This judgment has wider implications for prison administration, constitutional rights of convicts, and the doctrine of reformation under Indian criminal law.
Understanding Parole
Nature and Scope
Parole is a temporary, conditional release of a prisoner, without annulling or suspending the sentence. Unlike bail or suspension of sentence, parole does not wipe out the penal consequences; rather, it only interrupts incarceration for a short, predefined period. After its expiry, the convict must return to prison to continue serving the remainder of the sentence.
Legal Position
In India, parole is governed primarily by prison manuals and state-specific rules (for example, the Karnataka Prison Manual). It is not a statutory right under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but courts have consistently held it to be part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Parole is seen as an extension of humane treatment and a step towards rehabilitation.
The Case Before the Karnataka High Court
Facts
- The convict, Siddanagouda, was serving a life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Ballari, for offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC (wrongful restraint and murder).
- He had filed a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 100176/2024) against his conviction. Though an application for suspension of sentence and bail was initially filed, it was subsequently withdrawn.
- His mother, Eshwaramma, filed the writ petition seeking parole for her son for 90 days due to her serious illness, supported by a medical certificate.
- The prison authorities, relying on a police report, opposed parole on the ground that the convict could instead seek bail or suspension of sentence in the pending appeal.
Issue
- Can parole be denied to a convict solely because he has not sought bail or suspension of sentence in a pending criminal appeal?
Arguments
Petitioner’s Case
- Parole is distinct from bail or suspension of sentence.
- The convict was entitled to temporary release given the mother’s illness, supported by medical proof.
- The refusal by prison authorities was mechanical and failed to consider the humanitarian circumstances.
State’s Case
- Since an appeal was pending, the convict could always apply for suspension of sentence or bail.
- Therefore, a parole request was unnecessary and not maintainable.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected the State’s contention and made several important observations:
1. Parole v. Bail/Suspension of Sentence
- Bail or suspension of sentence is granted by appellate courts to release convicts from incarceration for the entire duration of the appeal.
- Parole, in contrast, is temporary—usually 30, 60, or 90 days—and allows convicts to rejoin prison after the specified period.
- Therefore, the two remedies are not interchangeable. Non-filing of bail/suspension of sentence applications does not bar consideration of parole.
2. Previous Precedent
The Court cited its earlier ruling in Arjun v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 20180/2023), where it held that pendency of a criminal appeal does not prevent parole consideration. Even if bail had been rejected, parole could still be granted.
3. Humanitarian Purpose of Parole
Parole exists to respond to exigent circumstances such as the illness of close relatives. In this case, the convict’s mother’s medical condition was a valid ground.
4. Non-Application of Mind by Authorities
The rejection report did not evaluate the grounds under Sections 635, 636, 637, and 643 of the Karnataka Prison Manual, which govern parole. Authorities are duty-bound to issue a reasoned order considering such provisions.
5. Direction of the Court
- The Court allowed the writ petition in part.
- The convict was released on general parole for 60 days (instead of 90), subject to conditions like weekly attendance at the jurisdictional police station and restrictions against committing any offence during parole.
Statutory Framework Governing Parole
Indian Penal Code (BNS) & CrPC (BNSS)
Neither the IPC nor the CrPC provides explicit parole provisions. These codes deal primarily with conviction, sentencing, bail, and suspension/remission.
Prison Manuals
Parole is regulated through state prison manuals under the Prisons Act, 1894, and the Prisons Act, 1950. For Karnataka, Chapter XXXIV of the Karnataka Prison Manual (Sections 635–643) provides the framework:
- Grounds for parole include serious illness of family members, death, marriage, or education needs.
- Duration typically ranges from 30–90 days.
- Conditions are imposed to ensure return and prevent misuse.
Comparative Analysis: Parole v. Bail/Suspension
| Aspect | Parole | Bail/Suspension of Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Prison authorities, subject to judicial review | Court (Trial or Appellate) |
| Duration | Temporary (30–90 days) | Until appeal disposal or court order |
| Objective | Humanitarian grounds, reformation, social reintegration | Legal relief pending adjudication |
| Return to Jail | Mandatory after expiry | Not required until bail cancelled or appeal disposed |
| Statutory Basis | Prison Manuals | CrPC (now BNSS), appellate jurisdiction |
The distinction highlights why the denial of parole based on non-seeking of bail is legally untenable.
Broader Jurisprudence on Parole
- Delhi High Court in Mangu v. State (2019): Rejection of parole cannot be arbitrary; authorities must provide reasons.
- Bombay High Court in Santosh Mane v. State of Maharashtra (2021): Parole is not a privilege but part of prisoner’s rights.
- Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017): Even convicts of heinous crimes may be considered for parole, subject to security assessments.
Key Highlights of the Decision
In the words of Justice Suraj Govindaraj:
“Respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner’s son, namely Siddanagouda, CTP No.13583, on general parole for a period of 60 days in order to take care of his mother’s illness, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to the following conditions.
a) The prisoner (CTP No.13583) shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional Police Station, weekly once throughout the period of his parole and it would be
the responsibility of the jurisdictional Police to take him to gaol, in the event, the convict (CTP No.13583) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole.
(b) Respondent No.2 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated to ensure return of the detenu to the gaol and that he shall not commit any other offence during then period of parole.
(c) The registry is directed to communicate the order to the prison authority for its immediate execution.”
Implications of the Karnataka High Court Ruling
For Convicts
- Clarifies entitlement: Convicts cannot be forced to choose between parole and bail.
- Ensures humanitarian relief even during pending appeals.
For Prison Authorities
- They must apply prison manual provisions and cannot reject applications mechanically.
- Rejections must be supported by reasoned orders.
For Criminal Jurisprudence
- Strengthens the reformative theory of punishment, emphasising rehabilitation over retribution.
- Affirms constitutional protection of prisoners’ rights under Article 21.
Critical Analysis
Progressive Aspects
- The judgment is progressive and humane, protecting convicts from arbitrary state action.
- It reinforces that parole is not an alternative to bail but an independent right linked to dignity and family obligations.
Areas of Concern
- While the Court intervened, the discretion still lies with prison authorities. Lack of uniform national legislation on parole leads to inconsistent practices across states.
- Risk of misuse remains; strict monitoring is essential to prevent parole becoming a loophole for hardened criminals.
Conclusion
Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Eshwaramma v. State of Karnataka (2025) is a landmark reaffirmation that parole cannot be denied merely because a convict has not applied for bail or suspension of sentence. By distinguishing parole from other forms of release, the Court has upheld the constitutional mandate of humane treatment of prisoners and their right to maintain family bonds.
This ruling sets a strong precedent for ensuring that parole applications are judged on merits and humanitarian considerations, not rejected on technical grounds. It also underlines the judiciary’s role in safeguarding prisoner rights against mechanical and arbitrary state action.
In a broader sense, the judgment reflects the gradual shift in Indian criminal jurisprudence from retribution to reformation, ensuring that even convicts—while serving their sentences—are not stripped of their basic human dignity and familial responsibilities.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams