Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In Sunil Fulchand Shah Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 409, the Supreme Court observed that personal liberty is the most cherished freedom and perhaps more important than other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, yet at times, it becomes necessary to place a person under preventive detention without trial for security of the State and /or for maintenance of public order. There are situations when liberty of an individual must give way to the larger interest of the State. Significantly, this decision discerningly delineates the judicial difference between bail and parole, and holds that the two have different connotation in criminal jurisprudence, though both have practically just about the same effect. Referring to section 12(6) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange And Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act („COFEPOSA Act‟ for short), it was observed that the word "otherwise" used in the said provision would cover even parole and, therefore, parole like bail cannot be granted by way of judicial intervention. Parole could be granted by way of temporary release under Section 12(1) and 12A of the COFEPOSA Act by the Government or its functionaries in accordance with the parole rules or administrative instructions framed by the Government. There is no statutory provision dealing with the grant of parole and administrative instructions have been framed by different States. In this context it was observed: