JUDGMENT 1. This petition for writ is preferred by convict prisoner Shri Bhanwarlal to have a direction for the respondents to award him 30 days regular parole as per provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). 2. As per the facts available on record the petitioner is languishing himself in Central Jail, Jodhpur being sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment on conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code under judgment dated 10.3.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotara. He has already served sentence for a period of 7 years and 24 days as on 30.11.2014 including State and Jail remission. 3. The District Parole Advisory Committee, Barmer in its meeting dated 24.11.2014 considered his case for grant of parole as per provisions of the Rules of 1958 but denied the same on the count that the convict prisoner failed to provide any appropriate reason to have parole. 4. The petitioner in the petition for writ has levelled serious allegations of demanding bribe by the Station House Officer, Police Station Nagana to convey positive remarks to the District Parole Advisory Committee, but we are not examining that as the Station House Officer concerned is not before us as a party respondent in his personal capacity. 5. Heard. 6. The Government of Rajasthan exercising authority under sub-section (6) of Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding provision Section 431 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) made the Rules of 1958. As per clause (d) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1958 parole' means conditional enlargement of a prisoner from the jail under the Rules of 1958. As per Rule 3 of the Rules aforesaid a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year, subject to exceptionally good behaviour, be allowed by the Superintendent Jail, in which he is confined, to submit application for parole in triplicate in Form-1. The application submitted is required to be forwarded to the District Magistrate by the Superintendent Jail concerned after completing the formalities as required under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1958. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1958 provides complete procedure for considering an application submitted by a prisoner as per Rule 3 and forwarded to the District Magistrate by Superintendent Jail as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1958. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1958 provides complete procedure for considering an application submitted by a prisoner as per Rule 3 and forwarded to the District Magistrate by Superintendent Jail as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1958. The District Magistrate at the first instance is required to consult the Probation Officer and if necessary to the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned. In case the District Magistrate after having such consultation raises no objection to let off the prisoner on parole, he would send all the papers in original to the District Parole Committee for orders stating the conditions on which the prisoner may be released on parole. As per clause (a) of Rule 5, an application forwarded to the District Parole Advisory Committee by the District Magistrate is required to be considered by the committee only to settle conditions on which prisoner may be released on parole. In view of the provisions discussed above, primarily it is duty of the District Magistrate to approve or disapprove the application for grant of parole and presentation of an application before the District Parole Advisory Committee by the District Magistrate pre-supposes that the District Magistrate is having no objection to let off the prisoner on parole. The District Parole Advisory Committee is also empowered to accept or reject the application on receiving the recommendation of the District Magistrate and while considering that may also consult the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which conviction was recorded or confirmed. 7. From perusal of the minutes placed before us it appears that the District Magistrate, Barmer in the instant matter without applying his mind for its approval or disapproval, placed the application submitted by the petitioner before the District Parole Advisory Committee, Barmer for consideration and the District Parole Advisory Committee too without understanding the concept and spirit of the parole as prescribed under the Rules of 1958 rejected the same. The Rules of 1958, as a matter of fact, nowhere mentions for having definite or appropriate reasons to avail parole. It is well settled that the parole is an important device adopted in the reformation process of a criminal to help him to join main stream of life. The appropriateness of the reasons for parole is required to be examined only if a prisoner is claiming emergent parole as per Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958. It is well settled that the parole is an important device adopted in the reformation process of a criminal to help him to join main stream of life. The appropriateness of the reasons for parole is required to be examined only if a prisoner is claiming emergent parole as per Rule 10-A of the Rules of 1958. Parole could have been denied by the District Magistrate or the District Parole Advisory Committee on having a reasonable apprehension, based upon material available that the prisoner may not return back to jail to undergo remaining part of sentence, if released on parole. Parole can also be denied on having a serious apprehension of breach of law or about commission of another offence while availing parole and further on having a reasonable possibility for trying to intimidate or harm those who have deposed against him. There may be several other reasons too for denial of parole, but it cannot be rejected on irrelevant and inconsistent reasons to the basic concept of parole i.e. reformation of a criminal. The authority examining a case for awarding parole is required to consider such application with a view to award parole and a decision contrary should be taken only in exceptional circumstances by arriving at the conclusion that release of prisoner on parole shall not satisfy the object of awarding that. 8. We are of considered opinion that in the instant matter the District Magistrate, Barmer not only failed to adhere the procedure given under the Rules of 1958 but the application submitted by the petitioner was also not considered in light of the spirit and objects of the Rules of 1958 and was dismissed ipse-dixit with assertion that it is not having appropriate reasons. The mode adopted by the committee to consider the application for parole is novice and quite casual. 9. This petition for writ for the reasons given is allowed. The decision of the District Parole Advisory Committee, Barmer denying parole to the petitioner is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to release convict prisoner Bhanwarlal son of Jaisa Ram to avail 30 days second regular parole as per provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 provided he furnishes two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount subject to satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. The respondents are directed to release convict prisoner Bhanwarlal son of Jaisa Ram to avail 30 days second regular parole as per provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 provided he furnishes two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount subject to satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur while releasing the convict-prisoner on parole, shall be at liberty to impose other reasonable and adequate conditions to ensure his return to the State custody after availing the parole. 10. The Registry of this court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur with a specific direction to convey decision of this court to convict-prisoner within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the order.Petition allowed as above. *******