JUDGMENT 1. - Having been denied his 4th parole for 40 days, Smt. Shanti Devi has filed this petition on behalf of her husband Shri Hari Ram. 2. Brief facts or the case are that vide judgment dated 5.2.2005, Hari Ram was convicted for offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and impose with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and was directed to further undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar. 3. According to the State, as on 8.7.2011, Hari Ram has completed a total sentence of eight years, one month and four days. During this interim period, his three regular paroles. His third parole was granted from 20.3.2010 to 24.4.2010. Since he was eligible for the 4th regular parole, he applied for the same. However, vide order dated 1.7.2011, the parole committee declined to grant him the said parole. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently contended that the Social Welfare Officer has recommended the grant of parole to Hari Ram. However, in a mechanical manner, the S.P. Office has not recommended the case of the petitioner's husband for being released on parole. According to the police, Hari Ram, happens to be a member of a narcotics gang. Therefore, there is possibility of his absconding. According to the learned counsel, such a statement made by the police is belied by the fact that thrice Hari Ram had gone out on parole. During these paroles, he had religiously observed the conditions imposed upon him. He had returned back to the jail after completing his furlough. Thus, there is no possibility that he would abscond while he is granted his fourth regular parole. The learned counsel has also contended that according to the Jail Superintendent, Hari Ram was punished for breaking the jail discipline on 21.4.2009. However, despite such punishment, the petitioner's husband was allowed to go on parole by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2010. Therefore, the report submitted by the Superintendent, Jail deals with a state case, which cannot be read against the petitioner's husband. Therefore, petitioner's husband deserves to be released on parole. 5. On the other hand, Mr. However, despite such punishment, the petitioner's husband was allowed to go on parole by this Court vide order dated 10.3.2010. Therefore, the report submitted by the Superintendent, Jail deals with a state case, which cannot be read against the petitioner's husband. Therefore, petitioner's husband deserves to be released on parole. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has vehemently contended that husband of petitioner happens to be a convicted prisoner of N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, there is every chance that he may abscond. Secondly, Hari Ram has already violated Jail discipline. Therefore, the Superintendent, Jail was justified in not recommending his case for parole. Hence, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order dated 1.7.2011. 6. Undoubtedly, parole forms part of the reformative theory of punishment. Parole is granted in order to encourage the convicted prisoners to reform themselves while they are incarcerated. Moreover, the parole is granted to ensure that family ties are alive while offender may be incarcerated. Although the parole cannot be asked by way of right, but nonetheless the jail administration has to be alive to the philosophy underlying the grant of parole. 7. In the present case, both the police and the Superintendent, Jail should have been alive to the fact that the petitioner's husband was granted bail on three different occasions from 2007 to 2010. Yet, on each occasion, Hari Ram had peacefully gone on furlough and peacefully returned to the jail. Thus, the possibility that he is likely to abscond is rather slim. Therefore, the observation made by the police is not justified. Moreover, although he was punished in 2009 for breaking the jail discipline, but nonetheless he was granted parole even thereafter. An incident of 2009 cannot possibly be read for denial of the parole in the year 2011. Such incident is a state one. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner's husband has religiously followed the conditions imposed upon him while in furlough, this Court directs the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur to release the husband of petitioner, Hari Ram S/o Dhanna Ram, resident of Aratiya Khurd, Police Station Bhopalgarh for a period of forty days on parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules of 1958, provided he submits two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each and personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. 50,000/- each and personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner is further directed to maintain peace and tranquility during his sojourn and to report back to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur on the expiry of 40th day from the date of his release. 9. With these directions, the petition is hereby allowed.Petition allowed. *******