JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by a convict for direction to the respondents to release him on third regular parole. The petitioner was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by judgment of the Court of Special Judge, Swaimadhopur dated 12.1.2005. 2. According to the petitioner, he has completed more than 5 years and 3 months in prison without remission and six years and two months with remission. He was earlier released on first and second regular parole for twenty days and thirty days respectively. He peacefully completed the aforesaid period of parole and surrendered back to the jail authorities after completion thereof. It is contended that there was no complaint against the petitioner or his behaviour during the period when he was so enlarged on parole. The respondent authorities have mechanically rejected prayer of the petitioner for his release on third parole. The learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards the decision of the District Parole Advisory Committee whose minutes are on record at Annexure-1 and has argued that the Committee has recommended not to release the petitioner on parole merely because in the perception of Superintendent of Police, Sawaimadhopur, his release might cause disturbance to social peace and that could even endanger his own life. It is submitted that there is no basis for such a report and the same has not even been substantiated by the respondents in their counter affidavit. On the contrary the aforesaid minutes would indicate that the Assistant Director Social Welfare Department, Sawaimadhopur has recommended for release of the petitioner on parole. Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of division bench in Trilok Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2007 (4) WLC (Raj.) 112 and another division bench judgment in Prasad v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 1949/09 decided on 25.3.2009 . It is contended that in Trilok Singh, supra, division bench held that Advisory Committee has duty to consider extent of reform undergone by prisoner, as per Jail Report and cannot mechanically accept police report. Learned counsel also cited the division bench judgment in Hawa Singh v. State & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 3135/08 decided on 29.4.2008 wherein it was held that parole cannot be declined on mere ipse-dixit of the police. Learned counsel also cited the division bench judgment in Hawa Singh v. State & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition (Parole) No. 3135/08 decided on 29.4.2008 wherein it was held that parole cannot be declined on mere ipse-dixit of the police. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to release the petitioner on third regular parole. 3. Smt. Alka Bhatnagar, learned P.R opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was convicted under section 376 IPC by learned Special Judge, Sawaimadhopur. It is contended that because of the adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and keeping in view the nature of the crime and the fact that the petitioner could have endangered his own life if he was sent on third parole, the District Parole Advisory Committee recommended not to release the petitioner on parole. 4. Having regard to the facts of the case and the aforesaid cited judgments, I find that the respondents have not produced any particular material to show as to how and in what manner release of the petitioner could disturb social peace or otherwise jeopardise his own life. The report of Superintendent of Police has not been produced before this Court. But then, the minutes of the District Parole Advisory Committee indicates that Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department has recommended release of the petitioner on parole. There was no complaint against his behaviour when he was released on first and second regular parole. 5. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on third parole under Rule 9 of the Parole-Rules for a period of forty days provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each before Superintendent, Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur with the stipulation that the petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities soon after expiry of the aforesaid parole period.Writ Petition Allowed. *******