Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(c) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (for short the Act) for grant of parole to the petitioner for doing agriculture work. 2. Reply has been filed on behalf of State. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already completed about 11 years of confinement and that he has already availed parole twice i.e. from 10.1.2004 to 08.2.2004 (four weeks) and from 04.9.2007 to 26.9.2007 (three weeks) and that he has never misused the concession of parole. However, the request has been declined this time by the competent authority without any sufficient cause. 5. Under the Act parole can be declined by the competent authority on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act if he is otherwise entitled to be released on parole. The same reads as under :- "6. Prisoners not entitled to be released in certain cases :- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3 and 4, no prisoner shall be entitled to be released under this Act if, on the report of the District Magistrate, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that his release is likely to endanger the security of the State Government or the maintenance of public order." 6 Hence, parole can be refused only if the release is likely to endanger the security of the State and secondly on the ground that the same is likely to endanger the maintenance of public order. However, release of the petitioner on parole in this case has not been declined on any of the said grounds. Rather his prayer has been declined on the plea that he has committed heinous crime as he has committed murder of two children of his real brother-in-law and hence, there is possibility of committing heinous crime if release on parole. 7. However, the said recommendation is not based on any material. Rather, it has been admitted that he was released on parole twice during his custody of about 11 years and it has been mentioned in the reply, filed on behalf of State that nothing untoward happened during his earlier release. 7. However, the said recommendation is not based on any material. Rather, it has been admitted that he was released on parole twice during his custody of about 11 years and it has been mentioned in the reply, filed on behalf of State that nothing untoward happened during his earlier release. He surrendered in the jail after completion of parole period in time. 8. Petitioner has also placed on record the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat (Annexure P-2) that there is no apprehension of breach of peace if petitioner is released on parole. 9. Hence, in view of these facts declining the request of petitioner for release on parole cannot be said to be on any of the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Act. Hence, the impugned order, declining the request of the petitioner for release on parole is set aside. 10. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner for his release on parole in the light of the observations of this Court made above, as per Act and Rules and on usual undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly.