ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is serving out sentence consequent upon his conviction for offence under Section 302, 304/34, 120-B and 201 IPC by Additional Session Judge No. 2, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.41/2012 (28/2012) (45/2012) CIS No. 1154/2014 vide judgment dated 11.04.2017. The appeal against the said judgment is still pending before this Court. Since the petitioner has completed more than one fourth of his sentence, he applied for grant of first regular parole, which has been declined by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the District Parole Advisory Committee’) in its meeting dated 15.11.2017 and order in this regard was passed on 17.11.2017 only on the ground of adverse reports of Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu and Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Jhunjhunu. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declined regular first parole by District Parole Advisory Committee on the ground that Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu and Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Jhunjhunu in their reports indicated that petitioner has been convicted for murder of his brother and if he is released on parole, there can be threat of life to the witnesses of the case as also any untoward incident may take place. It is argued that aforesaid reports are based on apprehension only and the petitioner ought not to have been declined grant of parole on that ground. It is contended that aforesaid reports suffer from non-application of mind. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 17.11.2017 qua the petitioner be set aside and petitioner may be granted regular first parole of 20 days. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the parole petition and submitted that District Parole Advisory Committee has considered case of the petitioner on the basis of adverse reports of Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu and Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Jhunjhunu, which are based on proper application of mind. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the material on record. 5. The reason, which the respondents have given for not extending benefit of first parole is that petitioner has been convicted for murder of his brother and if he is released on parole, there can be threat of life to the witnesses of the case as also any untoward incident may take place. 5. The reason, which the respondents have given for not extending benefit of first parole is that petitioner has been convicted for murder of his brother and if he is released on parole, there can be threat of life to the witnesses of the case as also any untoward incident may take place. The aforesaid reason, in our considered opinion, is based on apprehension and there is no concrete foundation thereof. The purpose of release of an accused on parole is to ensure that he stays in contact with the society so that after his release on completion of sentence, he joins mainstream of the society as a reformed citizen. However, in order to safeguard against the apprehension that any untoward incident may take place, the petitioner can be put to certain conditions. 6. Having regard to the facts aforestated, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.11.2017 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the petitioner namely; Manohar Lal son of Birbalram shall be released on regular first parole from Central Jail, Bikaner for a period of 20 days from the date of his release upon his furnishing one personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner on the condition that the petitioner shall on every third day, report at concerned Police Station and further that he shall surrender before the jail authorities immediately after expiry of period of 20 days. In case, the petitioner fails to surrender immediately after expiry of stipulated period of 20 days, the jail authorities shall immediately inform the concerned Magistrate for procuring his arrest. It will be open for the concerned Jail Superintendent to put any other condition, as per Rules, to secure presence of the petitioner.