ORDER Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Narotam, petitioner, who is undergoing life imprisonment in a case FIR No. 12 dated 28.2.1995, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2003, vide which his application for agriculture parole has been rejected by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that as per the report of the District Magistrate, Etah, U.P., Agricultural work of the petitioner is being carried out satisfactorily by his family members and if he is released on parole, he will not come back. 2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that in view of the report of the District Magistrate, Etah, U.P., to the effect that family members of the petitioner are doing agriculture work properly and if he is released on parole, he will not surrender back and may commit offence. No other ground for rejection of the prayer has been disclosed in the reply. 3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents and perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that prayer of the petitioner for parole for agriculture purpose has been wrongly rejected on the ground that his agriculture work is being properly done by his family members and that if he is released on parole, he will not surrender back in the jail. The petitioner, in his petition, has specifically stated that there is no major male member in his house who can carry out necessary agricultural activities, whereas the respondents have not given the detail of family members of the petitioner, who are stated to have been doing the agriculture work. Moreover, in view of the observations made by this court in Jang Bahadur Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2001(1) RCR(Crl.) 233, parole for agriculture purpose cannot be denied on the ground that the other family members of the petitioner can do necessary cultivation. So far as apprehension of the respondents to the effect that if released on parole, the petitioner may not return back in the jail, is concerned, the same is baseless, as on earlier two occasions also, when he availed parole, he came back in time in the jail, which fact has been admitted by the respondents. So far as apprehension of the respondents to the effect that if released on parole, the petitioner may not return back in the jail, is concerned, the same is baseless, as on earlier two occasions also, when he availed parole, he came back in time in the jail, which fact has been admitted by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of two months by keeping in view the observations made above. Petition allowed.