JUDGMENT 1. - A letter has been received from Mohan, a convicted prisoner of Central Jail, Udaipur. The said letter has been treated as a Letter Petition by this Court. Vide order dated 23.01.2012, this Court had appointed Mr. Arpit Bhoot as Amicus Curiae. 2. Mr. Arpit Bhoot has submitted that vide judgment dated 06.02.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC and was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Out of his sentence of ten years, the petitioner has already completed a total of three years, eight months, and ten days. Although the petitioner was eligible for being released on his first parole of twenty days under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short) his case has been rejected ostensibly on the ground that the reports of the Superintendent of Police, and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur, are against him. According to the learned counsel, such reports should not be accepted mechanically by the Parole Committee. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Paras Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(1) WLC (Raj.) 129. 3. Thrice, this Court had asked the Public Prosecutor to produce a detailed report from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. However, so far the report has not been produced before this Court. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the report of the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur as well as the report of Social Welfare Officer, Udaipur. 5. It is interesting to note that according to the police, in case petitioner were to be released on parole, there is likelihood of disturbance being caused. Yet, according to the report of the Social Welfare Officer, he has spoken to the villagers and sought their views. According to him, there is no possibility of any disturbance being caused in case the petitioner were to be released on parole for twenty days. Obviously, the reports are contradictory to each other. However, the Superintendent of Police has not indicated any reasons for coming to the conclusion that in case the petitioner were to be released on bail, disturbance will be caused in the village. In the case of Paras Ram & Anr. Obviously, the reports are contradictory to each other. However, the Superintendent of Police has not indicated any reasons for coming to the conclusion that in case the petitioner were to be released on bail, disturbance will be caused in the village. In the case of Paras Ram & Anr. (supra), the learned Division Bench of this Court had clearly opined that unless the report of the Superintendent of Police is based on some evidence, such report should not be accepted ipse dixit by the Parole Committee. Although the report submitted by the police is not based on any evidence, it seems that the Parole Committee has accepted the report without applying its mind. Moreover, the Committee seems to have ignored the report submitted by the Social Welfare Officer, which is in favour of the petitioner. 6. Merely because a person may have been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC, the right of parole cannot be denied to him. Since parole is part of the reformative theory of punishment, parole should be granted as liberally as possible. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that parole is granted for three purposes; firstly, to inculcate reform within the convicted prisoner; secondly, to keep the family relationship alive; thirdly, to ensure that the convicted prisoner is brought back into the society as a contributory member. Thus, there is no reason why parole should have been denied to the petitioner. 7. A bare perusal of the report of the Social Welfare Officer clearly reveals that he had an occasion to meet the villagers. According to him, the villagers do not have any objection, and they do not feel that the release of the petitioner would cause any disturbance within the village. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of parole to the petitioner. 8. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner, Mohan s/o Hurma, shall be released on his first parole of 20 days provided he submits a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 30,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. 9. Mohan shall be released on the following conditions: (i) he shall not contact either the prosecutrix or any members of her family; (ii) he shall not threaten either prosecutrix or any member of her family; (iii) he shall maintain peace and tranquillity during his sojourn. 30,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur. 9. Mohan shall be released on the following conditions: (i) he shall not contact either the prosecutrix or any members of her family; (ii) he shall not threaten either prosecutrix or any member of her family; (iii) he shall maintain peace and tranquillity during his sojourn. In case any of these three conditions is not followed by Mohan, his parole shall stand automatically cancelled. He shall report to the Central Jail, Udaipur on the completion of 20th days; the period of 20 days shall be recorded from the date of his release. Parole granted on usual conditions. *******