ORDER : As regards the petitioner, the issue has become infructuous on account of the fact that vide judgment and order dated January 28, 2015, invoking power under Article 142 of the Contitution of India, setting aside the conviction of co-accused Ratan Lal in Criminal Appeal No.108/2008 and acquitting him for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, even petitioner has been acquitted of the charge framed against her. 2. However, the reference remains. 3. Vide order dated September 15, 2014, a Division Bench of this Court, noting a Division Bench judgment reported as 2011 Crim. Law Journal 1534, Suraj Giri v. The State of Raj. & Ors., made a reference to a Larger Bench. In the reference order the Division Bench noted that a proper assessment of the behaviour and conduct of a prisoner while on parole, albeit for short durations, is a necessary input to determine grant of permanent parole. It was observed that issue of parole and permanent parole in the State of Rajasthan has to be decided with reference to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, as per which a prisoner who has completed (with remission) 1/4th of his sentence and conduct in the jail is good, is entitled to be considered for release on first parole for 20 days. If conduct during first parole is good, for a second parole for a period of 30 days and if during said period conduct is good, parole for a third time for a period of 40 days. For purposes of grant of permanent parole the Rule stipulates that if during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and the character has been exceedingly well and the prisoner's conduct has been such that the prisoner is not likely to relapse into crime, permanent parole may be considered and granted. 4. In Suraj Giri's case the issue which came up was to the entitlement of a prisoner for grant of permanent parole who has not availed the first, second and the third parole. 5. The Division Bench judgment has noted the jurisprudence behind grant of parole. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been noted. Various judgments of the Supreme Court have been noted. 6. 5. The Division Bench judgment has noted the jurisprudence behind grant of parole. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been noted. Various judgments of the Supreme Court have been noted. 6. In the order making the reference to a Larger Bench the contra point which needs to be juxtaposed with reference to the principle of law culled out in Suraj Giri's case have not been encapsulated. 7. In our opinion Suraj Giri's case gives reasons for the conclusions arrived at and there was no occasion for the Division Bench to have referred the matter to a Larger Bench. 8. The reference need not be answered and in particular on account of the fact that the decision of the Division Bench in Suraj Giri's case has not been upset by the Supreme Court. Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal being SLP(Crim.) Nos.008466-008476 of 2011 was dismissed on November 4, 2011.