JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - The petitioner, who has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to release him on four weeks parole to meet his family members. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for four weeks parole before the Jail Superintendent to meet his sister and brother-in-law and to take care of their family in village Chhiniwal Kalan. In support of his case, the petitioner had also submitted a Panchayatnama from the Sarpanch of village Chhiniwal Kalan, Block Mehal Kalan, District Barnala. It is further the case of the petitioner that he has spent about 3-1/2 years period inside the jail and his conduct in the jail is good throughout and there is no complaint against him in the jail. Prior to this, he has not taken any parole or furlough. It has been alleged that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the basis of the wrong and baseless report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, the respondents have rejected the parole case of the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner after his temporary release on parole wants to reside with his sister’s family at village Chhiniwal Kalan and not at village Kattu, as wrongly reported by the Senior Superintendent of Police. He argued that respondent No.1 has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the parole case of the petitioner on the ground that the District Magistrate, on the basis of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, had not recommended his parole case. In his report, the Senior Superintendent of Police had observed that the petitioner is addict of intoxicants; he had committed a heinous crime by killing his brother when he was sleeping; he is a dangerous culprit and in case he is released on parole, he may commit any other serious crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has not committed any murder. It was a blind murder and he has been falsely implicated. In view of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the parole case of the petitioner and, therefore, a direction be issued to them to release the petitioner on parole. 4. It was a blind murder and he has been falsely implicated. In view of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the parole case of the petitioner and, therefore, a direction be issued to them to release the petitioner on parole. 4. Pursuant to notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is undisputed position that the petitioner has already spent about 3-1/2 years inside the jail and during this period he has not committed any jail offence and maintained good conduct throughout. Further, the Panchayat of village Chhiniwal Kalan has reported that in case the petitioner is released on parole, there will be no apprehension of breach of peace in the village as he wants to spend his parole period in the said village and not in village Kattu, where he is residing. It is also conceded position that the petitioner can be temporarily released on parole for four weeks under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to enable him to meet his family members. In our opinion, the release of a convict on parole is a wing of reformative process. Section 3 of the Act has been enacted as a reformative measure with an object to enable the prisoner to have family association or to perform certain family obligations and rituals. Until and unless sufficient material is available with the authorities giving solid reasons for declining the temporary release of a convict on parole, this benefit should not be declined to him. In the instant case, no such strong material or basis has been relied upon by the respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for four weeks to meet his family members. 7. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.7.2010 is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for temporary release on parole in light of the observations made in this order and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. ---------------------------