Honble SINGH, J. – This is an application under Sec.389 for temporary suspension of sentence which the petitioners are undergoing. In this application it has been stated that Hasan Ali (65 years) who was younger brother of Hazi Mukhtiyar Ali and uncle of Abdul Wahid has died on 24.7.1991 and as per the Islam and customs the `chalisv will be performed from 22.8.1996. It has been prayed that the sentences of the petitioners be suspended from the period 19.8.1996 to 3.9.1996. (2) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned special public prosecutor, appearing for the State . (3) Mr. Gulam Mustafa Khan has submitted that this Court has got wide powers to release the petitioners under the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958. He has further submitted that the aim of grant of parole to a convict is to encourage his good conduct and therefore normally they should be released on parole. He has placed reliance on the cases of Smt. Sushila Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan (1) and Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2) (4) On the other hand learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed this application on a number of grounds including the one that the offence for which the petitioners have been convicted is of very serious nature and also that in an earlier bail application this Court had observed that there were chances of fleeing of the accused. (5) We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration. In our opinion it is not a fit case in which the sentence should be suspended. It has not been stated in the application or in the affidavit that there are no other persons who can perform last rites of Hasan Ali at `Chalisva ceremony. It is also not there that Hasan Ali had no son. It may be that the petitioners may also perform some rituals but for that purpose we do not consider the release of the petitioner proper from the Jail. (6) The rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable. In the case of Smt. Sushila Kanwar the facts were that her elder daughter Nitu Kumari was suffering from epilepsy and her house had fallen dwon in rainy season and in these circumstances the Court thought it proper to release the convict shyam Singh on parole. (6) The rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable. In the case of Smt. Sushila Kanwar the facts were that her elder daughter Nitu Kumari was suffering from epilepsy and her house had fallen dwon in rainy season and in these circumstances the Court thought it proper to release the convict shyam Singh on parole. The facts of the second case were entirely differe- nts. The accused was required to appear in the examination. (7) After careful consideration of the entire material and the circumstances available on record we do not think it peroper to grant this application. (8) It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner Abdul Wahid had moved application for suspension of sentence and this application was considered on 15.7. 1996. His application was dismissed and at that time the learned counsel for the accused applicant had undertaken to file paper books within two weeks and it was difected that the appeal shall be listed for hearing on 6 th August, 1996. The petitioners have not filed paper books as yet and thereby they have themselves delayed the disposal of the appeal. Since the papre book has not been filed, the office shall now prepare paper book as per rules. (9) Consequently, we do not find any merit i the application, which is hereby dismissed. However, we direct the Jail Authorities to take the petitioners at the place of performing rituals on the date and time to be intimated by the petitioners.