JUDGMENT : N.S. DHANIK, J. 1. Facts of the case are such that the petitioner has been convicted, inter-alia, for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC and he is presently serving out the sentence of life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence have been affirmed by this Court and presently his SLP against the said conviction is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 2. Petitioner has moved an application from jail seeking parole of three months and the same has been registered as present criminal writ petition. Parole has been sought on the ground that the petitioner’s wife is suffering with depression and alzheimer’s disease and there is no one to look after both the children of the petitioner. Petitioner has also stated that his father is around 80 years old and his mother is about 75 years old and both are suffering from several critical diseases including the serious heart ailments. It is also stated that the petitioner himself is also suffering from several serious diseases. Various medical papers of the different hospitals have also been annexed. 3. Petitioner twice moved application seeking parole on the aforementioned grounds but his applications were rejected by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Relying on the verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh and Another vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 1091 , learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner argued that the decision in Inder Singh's case has a message of compelling force and relevance to the prison pathology. A logical consequence of this decision is that parole has become an integral part of our criminal justice and regardless of the crime a man may commit, he still is a human being and has human feelings also. Therefore the nature and length of sentence or the magnitude of the crime committed by the prisoner are not relevant for the purpose of grant of parole. 5. Similarly, in the case of Shakuntala Devi vs. State of Delhi, 1996 (36) DRJ 545 , Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed as under: “(5) In Poonam Lata vs. M.L. Wadhawan, it has been held by their Lordship that: “RELEASE on parole is a wing of reformative process and is expected to provide opportunity to the prisoner to transform himself into a useful citizen.” 6. Similar view was expressed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ramesh @ Ajay vs. State of Haryana and Others (C.W.P. No. 8776 of 2018 decided on 24.04.2018). 7. As per the report of the jail authority concerned, the petitioner is in jail since almost five years. Petitioner is praying for parole so that he may make arrangement for treatment of his wife and old-aged parents. According to him, there is no one in the family to look after his two children and he also wants to make some arrangement for them. 8. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that on verification, it has been found that the petitioner’s wife and parents are suffering from serious diseases. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition discussed above, parole cannot be denied to the petitioner merely because he has been sentenced for life. 10. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of two months from the date of his release, on his executing a personal bond of rupees fifty thousand with two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of District Magistrate concerned. It is directed that, on expiry of two months from the date of release, the petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent of the Jail concerned. 11. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Superintendent of concerned jail forthwith. 12. Certified copy of this order shall be supplied to learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner, today itself, free of cost.