JUDGMENT 1. - Incarcerated in Central Jail Udaipur, a convicted prisoner, Chiman Lal, has sent a letter to this Court which has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. 2. The petitioner has informed this Court that by judgment dated 24.1.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 1, Udaipur, he was convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 540 I.P.C. So far as, he has completed five years of actual sentence. Therefore, he was eligible for being released on first parole of twenty days. However, by order dated 19.6.2012 his case has been rejected by the District Parole Committee. Hence, his prayer that he should be released on first parole. 3. In its reply, the State has admitted that the petitioner-has completed more than six years of his sentence including remission. However, according to the respondents, the petitioner's case was rejected on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh and Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur have submitted adverse reports against the petitioner. According to the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was in the habit of consuming liquor. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police has not recommended his case. According to the Superintendent Central Jail, the petitioner was not working at the jail factory. According to the Additional Government Advocate, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, since there were adverse reports against the petitioner, the committee was justified in rejecting his case. 4. However, neither of these two reports have been submitted before the Court. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in jail for the last six years, it is, indeed, surprising that he still has the habit of consuming liquor. But, he cannot have access to liquor while in jail. Therefore, the report of the Superintendent of Police is baseless. Moreover, the reason for absence of the petitioner from the jail factory have not been made clear by the Superintendent of Central Jail. Most importantly, the Social Welfare Officer has recommended that the petitioner be released on parole. 5. In catena of cases, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that a mechanical report should not be accepted ipsi dixi by the District Parole Committee or by the Advisory Committee. The concerned authorities should be alive both to the philosophy behind parole as well as to the constitutional mandate. 5. In catena of cases, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that a mechanical report should not be accepted ipsi dixi by the District Parole Committee or by the Advisory Committee. The concerned authorities should be alive both to the philosophy behind parole as well as to the constitutional mandate. The accused has a right to re-establish his links with his family during his furlough. The said right cannot be denied to him in an arbitrary and unfair manner.For the reasons stated above, this petition is, hereby, allowed and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur is directed to release the petitioner, Chiman Lal S/o Ram Lal, on first parole of twenty days, provided he submits a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. He is directed to maintain ace and tranquility during his furlough and to report back to the Centr ail, Udaipur after completion of twentieth day of his first parole.Petition allowed. *******