JUDGMENT 1. - A letter has been received from Smt. Shreya Devi, the mother of Khet Nath, a convicted prisoner serving his sentence at Central Jail, Jodhpur. The said letter has been treated as a letter petition by this Court. Vide order dated 9.2.2012, this Court had appointed Mr. Manish Tak, as amicus curiae to argue this case on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Manish Tak, has contended that Khet Nath was convicted for offences under Sections 376 and 447 IPC and was sentenced to seven years of R.I. for offence under Section 376 IPC. An on 3.3.2012, out of sentence of seven years, he has already completed four years and sixteen months. During this period, he was granted a first parole from 19.10.2010 to 7.11.2010 for twenty days. He was also granted an interim bail for twelve days from 6.1.2011 to 17.1.2011. On both these occasions, he had religiously adhered to the conditions of parole and bail. On completion of his parole and bail period, he had peacefully returned to the Central Jail. Since, he was eligible for second parole of thirty days, he had applied for the same. Vide order dated 19.1.2012, he was granted a parole of thirty days provided he furnished two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each and a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-. However, according to his mother her three sons are convicted prisoners. 3. Thus, there is no one in the family who can give sureties for Khet Nath. Moreover, the family is extremely poor. Therefore, they cannot produce any sureties for the large sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, the petitioner has prayed that the personal bond of Khet Nath should be taken and he should be granted benefit of second parole. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that it is imperative that sureties be provided in accordance with the order dated 19.1.2012. Till the sureties were provided Khet Nath cannot be released on parole. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Poverty cannot be permitted to be an obstacle for granting a limited liberty to a convicted prisoner. According to the petitioner, the family is financially crippled and is not in a position to produce two sureties for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each. Moreover, even Khet Nath may not be in a position to give a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-. According to the petitioner, the family is financially crippled and is not in a position to produce two sureties for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each. Moreover, even Khet Nath may not be in a position to give a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-. But, merely because the sureties and personal bond of such a large amount cannot be given, it cannot be a ground for depriving him of his liberty during the parole period. 7. Considering the fact that on two occasions, Khet Nath had followed the bail and parole conditions faithfully, considering the fact that he had returned back to the jail for serving the remaining part of his sentence, this Court directs that a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- shall be taken from Khet Nath. In case the said personal bond is given by him to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur, Khet Nath shall be released on his second parole of thirty days. He is directed to maintain peace and tranquility during his parole period. He is not to contact the prosecutrix or any member of her family during the parole period. He should peacefully return back to the Central Jail, Jodhpur upon completion of the 30th day of his being released on parole.With theses directions, the parole petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******