JUDGMENT 1. - By this Habeas Corpus Petition the petitioner has prayed for premature release. The accused petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment vide judgment and order of the tried court dated 28.9.1979. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 13.9.84.The petitioner has remained behind the bars for more than 15 years excluding the remission. He has already moved two habeas corpus petitions before filing this petition. While deciding first petition this court on 5.5.1994 observed as under "......the State Government must consider the case of the petitioner on merits keeping in view the observations made by us and ignoring the report of the Advisory Board." The petitioner's case was directed to be decided within 3 weeks. The case of the petitioner was considered and the prayer for premature release was rejected. Thereafter, the second petition was filed and again it was directed to move fresh representation before the Superintendent of the Jail who shall place the matter before the Advisory Board for consideration. In pursuance of that order the matter was placed before the Advisory Board and the prayer of the petitioner for premature release was rejected. 2. In this petition the accused petitioner has prayed that he remained behind the bars for a period of more than 15 years. The report of Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate Jhunjhunu are of routine nature. Even the Superintendent of the Jail has recommended his case for premature release. 3. 2. In this petition the accused petitioner has prayed that he remained behind the bars for a period of more than 15 years. The report of Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate Jhunjhunu are of routine nature. Even the Superintendent of the Jail has recommended his case for premature release. 3. We have gone through the report of the District Magistrate and the reasons given by the District Magistrate are as tinder 1- le; iwoZ fjgk djus esa lekt dh izfrfdz;kA 2- le; iwoZ fjgk djus ij canhd`r vijk/k ls ;kruk Hkqxrs gq, O;fDr ,oa lEcfU/k;ksa ij izHkko&;kruk Hkqxrs gq;s ifjokj ls orZeku esa dkQh nq'euh py jgh gSA ckj&ckj f'kdk;r gks jgh gS rFkk yM+kbZ >xM+k cuk jgrk gSA 3- le; iwoZ fjgk fd;s tkus ij canh ds thou dks [krjk&canh ds thou dks [krjk eglwl fd;k tk jgk gSA 4- vU; vko';d lwpuk & le; iwoZ canh }kjk 420 dk Hkh ,d izdj.k dj fn;k gS ftldk eqdnek tsy >qU>quw }kjk ntZ fd;k x;k gSA 5- le; iwoZ fjgk fd;s tkus ij lkekftd 'kkafr ij izHkko&lkekftd v'kkafr gksus dk iwjk&iwjk vans'kk gSA 6- le; iwoZ fjgk;h izfrcaf/kr gks ;k lizfrcfU/kr ;k vkjksfir izfrcaf/kr dk fooj.k&flQkfj'k ugha dh tkrh gSA 7- canh dk iwoZ bfrgkl ,oa pfj= dk fooj.k&canh dk izd`fr esa vHkh cnyko ugha vk;k gSA iwoZ dk pfj= Bhd ugha jgk gSA The reasons given by the Superintendent of Police are as under " mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd vkidk i= izkIr gksus ij Fkkukf/kdkjh ,oa o`rkf/kdkjh >qU>quw ls vijk/kh fd'kksj flag iq= fjNikyflag jktiwr fu0 dkyh igkM+h Fkkuk&cxM+ dh tkap djkbZ xbZ rks ik;k x;k fd ;g canh gR;k ds vijk/k esa ltk Hkqxr jgk gS tks cgqr gh xEHkhj vijk/k gSA ;g iwoZ esa dbZ ckj iSjksy ij ?kj tk pqdk gSA vr% gR;k dk vijk/k cgqr gh xEHkhj gSA bl ckr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s bl vijk/kh dks vkbUnk iSjksy ij ugha NksM+k tkosA " The reasons given by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are that there will be reaction in the society if the petitioner is released prematurely and it will adversely affect the relations of the deceased. Even the life of the accused petitioner will be in danger if he is released prematurely. He has also faced the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Even the life of the accused petitioner will be in danger if he is released prematurely. He has also faced the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 420 IPC. If the petitioner is released prematurely the peace of the society is likely to be adversely affected. These are the factors which are very common in each case but no specific, evidence on the allegations or reasons is placed before us. The accused petitioner was on parole 9 times, but not even a single untoward incident happened nor any offence was committed by him. There is no material on record that he committed any offence during the period he remained on parole or the peace of the society was affected in any way. 4. It is true that the petitioner faced criminal trial for the offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC in the case State v. Kishore Singh (Cr. Case No. 87/92) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, but he has beep acquitted by the trial court vide its judgment dated 23.12.1994. Therefore, that factor also cannot be read against him. 5. Considering these undisputed facts, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for premature release. 6. Consequently, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released forth-with, if not required in any other case, after obtaining requisite bonds from him under rule 11 of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1975. *******