JUDGMENT 1. - A letter has been sent by Bhagwan Singh, a convicted prisoner, who is serving his sentence at Central Jail Udaipur. The letter has been treated as letter petition by this Court. 2. The petitioner has claimed that by order dated 07.05.2012, the District Parole Committee has rejected his case for second parole. According to him, he has already completed eight years and two months as on 30th June, 2012. He has already gone on his first parole. Therefore, he is eligible for the second parole. 3. According to the respondents, the petitioner's case for second parole was rejected ostensibly on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh and Superintendent, Central Jail Udaipur had submitted adverse reports. According to Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, in case the petitioner were to be released, it would create law and order problem. According to the Superintendent, Central Jail Udaipur, the petitioner was not working in the jail factory. However, according to the jail record, the petitioner was released on his first parole prior to 2011, yet his second parole has been denied on the ground that he has been absent from the jail factory prior to 31.01.2011. 4. The report submitted by the Superintendent of Police dated 13.04.2012 is a mechanical one. The S.P., Pratapgarh has not recorded any statements to show that there is a possibility of fighting between the petitioner and the complainant party. Because of the fact that their houses are near each other. In catena of cases, it has been held, both by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this Court that such a mechanical report should not be accepted by the Parole Committee automatically. However, the committee seems to have accepted the reports without questioning its validity. 5. Further, no evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that the petitioner has not been working in the jail factory after 31.01.2011. According to them, he was absent from the jail factory prior to 30.01.2011. However, admittedly he had been sent on his first parole of twenty days after 30.01.2011. 5. Further, no evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that the petitioner has not been working in the jail factory after 31.01.2011. According to them, he was absent from the jail factory prior to 30.01.2011. However, admittedly he had been sent on his first parole of twenty days after 30.01.2011. Therefore, the reason given by the Committee for denying him the second parole of thirty days is untenable.Hence, this Court quashes and sets aside the order dated 07.05.2012 qua the petitioner and directs the respondents to release the petitioner, Bhagwan Singh S/o Labhchand Rawat, on his second parole of thirty days, provided he submits a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. The petitioner is directed to maintain peace and tranquility during his furlough and to report back to the Central Jail, Udaipur on the 30th day of his parole.The petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******