Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-Wanting to take care of his father, who is dying of cancer and is confined to bed, the petitioner had applied for emergent parole under Rules 10-A of the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as Rules of 1958) to the District Magistrate, Alwar. However, vide order dated 11.05.2007, the learned Magistrate had rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of regular first parole. Hence this petition before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allegedly involved in the offences under Sections 302/34, 448/34, 331/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) in the year 1999. Subsequently, he was convicted and sentenced to Life Imprisonment by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Jhalawar vide Judgment dated 20.12.2003 So far the petitioner has served about 5 years and 4 months of imprisonment excluding the remission period. The petitioners father Sh. Kundan Lal, an old man of 70 years, is suffering from cancer of the rectum. Because of this dreadful disease, he is totally confined to bed. Since he further needs to undergo chemotherapy, the petitioner, being the eldest son in the family, had applied for emergent parole under Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958. However, the same has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Alwar. 3. Mr. Anushuman Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the fundamental rights granted to a citizen are not obliterated merely because a citizen is imprisoned considering the fact that emergent situation may arise for a convicted prisoner. Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958 permits the grant of emergent parole to meet out urgent situation. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is a social beneficial piece of legislation that should be applied liberally. Considering the fact that the petitioners father is in the grip of cancer and desperately needs medical attention, the learned Magistrate should have granted emergent parole. 4. On the other hand, the learned public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the grant of emergent parole. 5. Merely because a person is imprisoned, he is not denuded of all his fundamental rights. His fundamental rights of freedom of movement are curtailed, but nonetheless, the right of life, which entails the rights to fulfill certain social obligation, continues to accompany the prisoners. 5. Merely because a person is imprisoned, he is not denuded of all his fundamental rights. His fundamental rights of freedom of movement are curtailed, but nonetheless, the right of life, which entails the rights to fulfill certain social obligation, continues to accompany the prisoners. Keeping in mind that urgent situation may certainly arise which the prisoners might need to tackle immediately. Rule 10-A was incorporated for grant of urgent parole Rule 10-A is as under : "10-A. (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of Rules (3, 4, 5), 9 and 10, in emergent cases, involving humanitarian consideration viz. (1) critical condition of account of illness of any close relations i.e. Father, mother, wife, husband, children, brother or un-married sister; (2) death of any such close relation; and (3) serious damage to life or property from any natural calamity. [(4) Marriage of a Prisoner his/her son or daughter or his/her brothers/sisters in case his/her parents are not alive.] A prisoner (may) be released on parole for a period not exceeding 7 days by the Superintendent of the Jail and for a period not exceeding 15 days by the Inspector General of Prisons (District Magistrate) on such terms and conditions as they may, consider necessary to impose for the security o the prisoner including a guarantee for his return to the Jail, acceptance or execution whereof would be a condition precedent to the release of such a prisoner on parole. (ii) A copy of the order for release of prisoners on parole shall be endorsed to the next higher authority giving full circumstances under which the parole has been allowed). [In case the next higher authority does not approve the grant of parole, he may ask the authority granting the parole to revoke the same who shall act accordingly.] 6. A bare perusal of this Rule would clearly reveals that it is an humanitarian law which permits the prisoner to take care off immediate exigency such as the death in his family, the illness of his dear ones and damage to his property etc. In the present case, the petitioners father is dying from cancer. Being the eldest son in the family, he has certain social obligation to look after the welfare of his father. Considering the humanitarian angle, there is no reason for denying the emergent parole to the petitioner. 7. In the present case, the petitioners father is dying from cancer. Being the eldest son in the family, he has certain social obligation to look after the welfare of his father. Considering the humanitarian angle, there is no reason for denying the emergent parole to the petitioner. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur is directed to release the petitioner Rajesh Kumar S/o Kundan Lal, B/c Aheer for a period of 15 days (Fifteen days) on an emergent parole under Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958, provided the petitioner submits two sureties of Rs. 20,000/-each and personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. The Superintendent, Central Jail is directed to inform the concerned Probation Officer to monitor the activities and whereabouts of the petitioner during his release on parole. The report of the Probation officer shall be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail and report shall form part of the official record of the petitioner kept in the jail. The petitioner is further directed to maintain peace and to observe good behaviour during his sojourn and to report back to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur on the expiry of 15th day from the date of his release.