ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner, wife of convict prisoner Khaju @ Khawaja Hussain, has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution, for seeking first regular parole for the convict, who is presently lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer. 2. It is, inter alia, averred in the petition that convict, Khaju @ Khawaja Hussain, was prosecuted for offence under Section 376 IPC and, upon conclusion of trial in Sessions Case No. 75/2014, indicted for the said offence and was handed down ten years' rigorous imprisonment on 4th of June 2015. Being aggrieved by the said verdict, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'), convict preferred an appeal before this Court, which is pending consideration. 3. Espousing cause for first regular parole of Khaju @ Khawaja Hussain, it is also averred in the petition that convict has already undergone one-fourth of the sentence awarded by learned trial Court inasmuch as he has already served sentence for more than three & half years. While laying emphasis on Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958'), it is pleaded that these Rules are for the welfare of convicts, and therefore, while considering release of prisoners on regular parole, grounds which are relevant and germane under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 are to be pressed into service. In that background petitioner has set out a ground that the District Level Parole Committee (for short hereinafter referred to as "Committee") cannot decline regular parole for extraneous reasons or the reasons which are alien to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. 4. On behalf of State, reply to petition is filed, wherein it is admitted that the convict has served sentence of three years, eight months & eight days uptil first of January 2018, therefore, the entitlement of convict for first regular parole is not disputed by the State. It is also averred in the reply that earlier the convict has not availed any emergent parole. For defending order (Annex.1) State has precisely relied upon culpability of the convict and report of Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. 5. It is also averred in the reply that earlier the convict has not availed any emergent parole. For defending order (Annex.1) State has precisely relied upon culpability of the convict and report of Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. 5. While assailing order (Annex.1), whereby Committee has declined first regular parole to the convict, it is submitted by learned counsel that the facts and circumstances, which were relevant and germane to the matter, have been eschewed and certain extraneous considerations have prevailed for nixing the first regular parole of convict. Learned counsel further submits that impugned order is in clear negation of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, which envisage grant of parole to inculcate and instill good behaviour amongst convicted prisoners. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has stoutly defended the impugned order by reiterating all the objections raised in the reply. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record, including order (Annex.1). 8. Upon examining the matter in its entirety and the reasons set out for rejecting first regular parole to convict Khaju @ Khawaja Hussain, I am at loss to say that rejection order is founded on wholly non-est and jejune grounds and the Committee has considered the case of convict for grant of first regular parole in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1958 clearly envisage that relevant consideration for grant of regular parole is good conduct of convict in jail besides his eligibility for grant of parole. It is also noteworthy that the Committee has completely ignored/overlooked report of the Jail Superintendent and favourable recommendation of Assistant Director, Social Justice & Empowerment Department, Bhilwara while passing the impugned order (Annex.1). A close scrutiny of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that the Committee has at all made any endeavor to examine the aims and objects of the Rules of 1958. The precise object of grant of parole is to instill good behaviour, to keep the family link alive and to ensure that convicted prisoner is brought peacefully back into the society at large. 9. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded to accept this writ/parole petition. The precise object of grant of parole is to instill good behaviour, to keep the family link alive and to ensure that convicted prisoner is brought peacefully back into the society at large. 9. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded to accept this writ/parole petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annex.1) so far as it relates to convict prisoner, Khaju @ Khawaja Hussain, is quashed and set aside and the matter is sent back to the Committee for considering regular parole of convict prisoner Khaju @ Khawaja Hussain, afresh strictly in accordance with law. 10. The requisite consideration of prayer for grant of first regular parole of convict prisoner Khaju @ Khawaja Hussain may be made by the Committee within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of this order.