JUDGMENT 1. - By this letter petition, the convict-prisoner Satva Narayan S/o Shanker Lal Darji, who being convicted for offence under Section 376 I.P.C., is presently serving sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment at Central Jail, Ajmer; has prayed for 20 days regular parole in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (herein after 'the Rules of 1958'),It is stated that the petitioner convict is entitled for 20 days regular parole but the District Collector, Nagaur has rejected his parole application on the ground of Police report, apprehending that in the event of release on parole there will be threat to life of convict-prisoner from members of victim's family. 2. As per reply to the petition filed on behalf of respondents, the District Parole Advisory Committee, Nagaur in its meeting dated 21.6.2012 considered and rejected claim of the convict-petitioner for availing 20 days parole by relying upon adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and mentioned that the victim and the petitioner-prisoner reside in the same village and therefore, on granting parole to the petitioner-prisoner, peace and tranquillity shall be adversely affected. 3. It is also stated in the reply that a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar @ Munna Singh & 12 Ors. v. State of Rajashtan & Ors., (D.B. C.W.P. No. 2138/2011) held that during pendency of an appeal against conviction and sentence, a convict-prisoner can not be permitted to have parole under an administrative order and in the light of aforesaid, the State Government has issued a circular dated 30.8.2012. 4. Suffice is to note here that main reason for rejecting parole application of the petitioner by the District Parole Advisory Committee is adverse report by Police. As per reply, the petitioner-prisoner has already served our sentence of two years 11 month 21 days, including Jail remission of four months six days as on 23.8.2012. 5. 1 do not want to make any comment on the apprehension so disclosed by Police, however, in view of object and spirit of the Rules of 1958, such apprehension is not valid one. 5. 1 do not want to make any comment on the apprehension so disclosed by Police, however, in view of object and spirit of the Rules of 1958, such apprehension is not valid one. During' the course of parole, a convict-prisoner is supposed to have complete security through State Government and as such, if the apprehension disclosed by the Superintendent of Police, Pali is having any foundation then the convict-petitioner is required to be provided necessary security while availing period of his parole. Parole to a convict-prisoner is his statutory right, that cannot be denied for unseen apprehension. 6. Having considered all the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the reasons given for denying parole are not sufficient. It is well settled that parole is required to keep a convict-prisoner in regular stream of the society and for that purpose of rehabilitation, in my considered opinion, such a valuable right cannot be denied for far-fetched apprehension and for minor reasons. In such circumstances. I deem it appropriate to accept this petition. 7. Accordingly, this letter petition for parole is allowed. The convict-prisoner Satya Narayan S/o Shanker Lal Darji, aforesaid be released on regular parole for a period of 20 days, provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) along with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer, who shall impose adequate conditions as per Rules of 1958 to secure surrender of the convict-prisoner immediately after completion of the period of parole. It is made clear that the parole term of the petitioner shall be counted from the date of his actual release.Petition allowed. *******