The Supreme Court has discussed the differences between ‘furlough’ and ‘parole’ and the principles relating to grant of them.<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court made these observations while hearing an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court granted two weeks’ furlough to a self-proclaimed godman and <\/span>rape convict who is serving a life term imprisonment.<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court reversed the Gujarat High Court Order.<\/span><\/p>\n Further, the Supreme Court discussed the differences between ‘furlough’ and ‘parole’ and the principles relating to grant of them. The following are the differences:<\/span><\/p>\n Firstly, <\/b>Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody<\/span><\/p>\n Secondly<\/b>, while parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason.<\/span><\/p>\n Thirdly, <\/b>the grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society.<\/span><\/p>\n Fourthly,<\/b> although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough.<\/span><\/p>\n Fifthly, <\/b>the grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat was the case?<\/b><\/h5>\n
What did the Supreme Court say regarding furlough and parole?<\/b><\/h5>\n