Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.2. The insistence that the petitioner must stay away from his own residence during the parole period is not only unreasonable but strikes at the very foundation of parole jurisprudence. The home environment, family support, and familiar social surroundings are central to the reformative purpose of parole. Compelling the petitioner to reside at an alien or unfamiliar place would frustrate the object of parole and reduce it to a mere symbolic release, devoid of its rehabilitative content. Parole is predominantly aimed at humanising the penal system and restoring the prisoner's sense of belonging to society. Family interaction and residence at one's home play a crucial role in emotional stability, moral reorientation, and social responsibility. Denial of the right to stay at home, in the absence of compelling and demonstrable reasons, would amount to an arbitrary restriction, contrary to the guiding principles of reformation and social reintegration. Therefore, the plea of the opponent that the petitioner should be directed to stay away from his home during the parole period is absurd, legally untenable, and contrary to the very object and spirit of parole. Such a condition would defeat the reformative aim of parole and convert a benevolent correctional (Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 03:03:03 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5418] (6 of 7) [CRLW-1343/2025] measure into a punitive restriction, which is neither contemplated by law nor justified on the facts.