JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned PP for the State at length. 2. The appellant who is a life convict undergoing sentence pursuant to his conviction vide Judgment dated 1.9.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 31/1995, whereby he was convicted to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishableunder section 302, IPC, has moved this Court by way of present applicationunder section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for transferring the appellant from Central Jail, Jaipur to District Jail, Alwar, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant has an aged mother and two minor children in the age group of 5 and 2 years respectively. His house is situated at village Nangali Megha near Alwar. 3. During the course of arguments it has been contended by Mr. Bajwa, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that after his conviction, the wife of the appellant has deserted him and as a consequence of which the minor children of the appellant are facing great difficulty inasmuch as they have been deprived of the parental love and affection all the more necessary and also for their welfare and custody for which the interest of justice demands that the appellant be shifted from Central Jail, Jaipur to District Jail, Alwar. 4. The learned PP for the State has opposed the maintainability of the application in view of the Government Circular dated 27.3.1999, perusal of which reveals that for security reasons it will not be safe to shift such convicts who are facing incarceration for a period of more than 10 years and life convicts. Prima facie we are of the view that it is the responsibility of the State Government to look after the security and welfare of the convicts particularly those who are undergoing sentence of more than ten years. Prima facie we are of the view that it is the responsibility of the State Government to look after the security and welfare of the convicts particularly those who are undergoing sentence of more than ten years. Herein the appellant, who has been convicted to life imprisonment pursuant to Judgment dated 1.9.1998 for the offence punishableunder section 302, IPC, we are of the view that the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant are quite justified since merely because a person who has been convicted for a particular offence especially in the cases where the period of incarceration is more than 10 years, would not by itself debar the convict from maintaining his family ties which is essential for moral and mental health of a convict for which it is desirable that he should be permitted to be nearer to his family particularly in the instant case where the distance between Jaipur and Alwar is about 140 Kms. We find no justification in the argument on behalf of the State Government that they would not be in a position to provide security to the convict as well as the other convicts, if the appellant is shifted from Central Jail, Jaipur to District Jail, Alwar. We are fortified in previews from the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1980 Supp. SCC 91) wherein an accused who was convicted to undergo incarceration for offence punishableunder section 304 part 11, IPC and who had requested for shifting to place nearer to his family on similar ground, it was held by the Apex Court that in such cases human considerations are important and family ties must be preserved instead of adopting de-humane attitude. In view of this the convict was shifted to District Jail, Gurgaon. 5. As a result of the above discussion, the application is allowed and the State Government is directed to shift the appellant from Central Jail Jaipur, where he is presently confined, to District Jail, Alwar till further orders. Copy of this order be also sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur for immediate compliance.Application allowed. *******