Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Mehoob, petitioner, who is presently confined in District Jail, Rohtak, had applied for agricultural parole for a period of six weeks in terms of the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Manimajra, Chandigarh, respondent No. 1 vide decision bearing No. 15123-GI/G.S. dated 9.5.2002 (Annexure-P.4) which was communicated to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this decision, the present petition has been filed. 2. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, written statement has been filed by D.N. Beniwal, Superintendent of District Jail, Rohtak on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been pleaded that the District Magistrate, Faridabad, in his recommendation stated that the petitioner owns only one acre of land and other members of his family are gainfully doing the agricultural work on that land. It was further stated that if the petitioner was allowed to be released on parole, possibility of untoward incident taking place cannot be ruled out. Taking into consideration the above reply, the Director General of Prisons, Haryana had rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thus, order of the rejection passed by the Director General of Prisons has been justified. 3. I heard counsel for the petitioner and State councel at length. 4. The petitioner has placed on record not only the copy of the Jamabandi (Annexure-P.1) but copy of ration card and recommendations of the Sarpanch as well as other members of the Gram Panchayat, Dhauj in support of his claim. 5. It is manifest from the stand taken by the respondents that they had not disputed the case of the petitioner that he owns one acre of land in the village. The fact that other family members of the petitioner can look after the land owned by him as such can hardly be taken as a ground to disentitle him to claim parole. The petitioner cannot be denied his right to supervise cultivation of his land even when the help of his family members is available. His participation in cultivation as well as in management of his land cannot be denied to him. 6. The petitioner cannot be denied his right to supervise cultivation of his land even when the help of his family members is available. His participation in cultivation as well as in management of his land cannot be denied to him. 6. Reverting to the stand taken on behalf of the respondents that release of the petitioner may lead to happening of untoward incident, it has to be noticed that it is the duty of the Police and the District Magistrate to give protection to the people who are apprehending danger on account of the release of the petitioner during the parole period. The release of the petitioner on parole can be contested by the respondents if it is shown that his release would be detrimental to the security or integrity of the country. Mere allegation of apprehension of breach of peace as such cannot be accepted because no material has been placed on record on behalf of the respondents to support the conclusion drawn in this regard. Therefore, I find no merit in the stand taken by the respondents in denying the claim of the petitioner for grant of parole to him. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure-P.4 is set aside. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing requisite bail bound and surety bond to the satisfaction of the competent authority, who shall prescribe the terms and conditions on which the parole is to be availed by the petitioner. Petition allowed.