JUDGMENT 1. A letter addressed to this Court by convict prisoner Om Niwas S/o. Shri Harlal, presently lodged at Central Jail, Bikaner is treated as petition for writ. The petitioner is seeking a direction for awarding 20 days first regular parole to him as per provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that by judgment dated 28.5.2011 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.102/2011, convicted accused petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 459, 326/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. inter alia, he has been sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with fine. The petitioner has already served sentence for a period of 07 years, 10 months and 05 days including jail remission for a period of 05 months & 20 days and state remission for a period of six months as on 22.12.2013. 3. The District Level Parole Advisory Committee, Jhunjhunu considered case of petitioner for grant of first regular parole in its meeting dated 29.8.2013 and denied parole by relying upon the adverse remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu and the Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, Jhunjhunu. As per the officers named above, the release of petitioner on parole may cause injury to peace and tranquillity as the victims and accused convict are yet keeping tense relations. 4. We have considered the reasons given by the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu as well as by the Assistant Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. 5. The authorities aforesaid have not given any details as to how they are having apprehension for breach of peace and tranquillity. So far as existing vengeance between the parties is concerned, that is quite obvious looking to the serious crime committed by the convict petitioner. Such vengeance or tense atmosphere between the parties cannot be a reason sufficient for denying statutory parole to a convict prisoner but a circumstance for the law and order maintaining authority to take necessary care of that. The prime and foremost consideration for grant of parole is to have reformatory steps for rehabilitation of a criminal in regular stream of society and such a pious object cannot be frustrated for vague and flimsy reasons. 6. The prime and foremost consideration for grant of parole is to have reformatory steps for rehabilitation of a criminal in regular stream of society and such a pious object cannot be frustrated for vague and flimsy reasons. 6. In the instant matter, having considered all the facts of case, we are of the view that the denial of parole to the petitioner was wrong and he deserves to avail 20 days regular parole. 7. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant 20 days first regular parole to the petitioner Om Niwas S/o. Harlal as per provisions of the Rules of 1958, provided he furnishes two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each and a personal-bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions upon the convict prisoner for his return to State custody.Petition allowed. *******