JUDGMENT Petitioner is a convict. He is languishing in Central Jail, Indore and undergoing life imprisonment. He applied for his release on parole under the M.P. Prisoner's Leave Rules, 1989. The authorities rejected the application made by the petitioner by their order dated 1.9.2003. It is against this rejection, the petitioner is· in writ. Heard Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. Verma, learned Government Advocate for respondents. The rejection was only on the basis of an adverse report of Superintendence of Police, dated 2.8.2003 (Annexure R-l). Perusal of the report submitted by the S.P. shows that it is based upon no material. The report records that petitioner is a first offender and was never involved in any other crime except the one for which he was convicted. The only ground mentioned in the report is that if petitioner is released on parole he might indulge in any criminal activity with the family members of complainant who are involved in the crime for which petitioner was convicted. In my opinion, in the absence of any past incident the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of parole. Mere apprehension without there being anything as a concrete proof against the petitioner, is no ground to deny a right to the petitioner for his release on parole because he otherwise fulfill all other conditions necessary for his release on parole. So far as his behaviour in Jail is concerned, the same has also been found to be good because there is no adverse report submitted by the Jail authorities. In my view, it is necessary for the SP/Collector to collect as much as information which is capable of being collected so far as convict is concerned while considering his case of release on probation/parole. This must include, the past history of the convict, his involvement in any crime other than the crime in which he is convicted, the details of the crime, if he is found to have involved, the outcome of the criminal case in which the convict was prosecuted, if he is on bail, at any time, then whether he made attempt to exploit the grant and if so, in what manner? Whether he indulged in any Clime while he was on bail during trial or while his appeal was pending or when he was even released on parole or probation ? Whether he indulged in any Clime while he was on bail during trial or while his appeal was pending or when he was even released on parole or probation ? Whether he or any person on his behalf at any time made attempt to harass the prosecution witnesses while the trial was going on ? The antecedents of his family members, their status in the society, the background of convict such as his age, qualification, vocation, profession, etc., his behaviour in Jail and outside Jail, etc., the nature and the circumstances in which he committed the crime in which he was convicted, whether there are any chances of his leading a peaceful life in the event of his release on parole/probation. The inquiry into these areas is a must in every case by the concerned SP/Collector/Jail Authorities as and when the convict applies for his release on parole/probation. In other words, the report of concerned authorities must contain the details specified by this Court supra, in respect of every convict before consideration of his case by the authorities. Though, consideration for convict's release on parole and probation are slightly different because they are governed by different Acts/Rules, yet while considering the release of any convict whether on parole or probation, the authorities i.e. Board must apply their mind to the aforementioned factors in addition to the requirement of rules which govern the case of concern convicts. The reason is that aforementioned factors are relevant while releasing a convict -- be it on parole or probation. Accordingly and in view of aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole strictly in accordance with the provisions of Parole Rules after ensuring its strict compliance. Let these formalities be done with a month and consequential orders be passed.