ORDER : The petitioner has challenged the conditions imposed by the respondents while granting parole. The petitioner has been required to furnish two sureties for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the past, the petitioner has not been found misusing the liberty while under parole. He has undergone 13 years' jail sentence by now and presently, he has been shifted to open jail. There is no complaint against him while in open jail, that he has misused his liberty. It is further submitted that while in open jail, he has been required to furnish one surety of Rs. 50,000/- which stands as on today. Next submission is that the father of the petitioner used to furnish two sureties but he is unable to move due to old age and sickness and, therefore, he finds it difficult to furnish two sureties. Therefore, in these circumstances, the condition of furnishing two sureties as directed by the Committee may be relaxed and he may allowed to be released on parole for a period of 40 days only on personal bond. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the petitioner may be released on parole on just and proper condition. In order to secure his presence, it is contended, it is necessary to impose such conditions ensuring his return otherwise he is likely to misuse his liberty. It is further submitted that the petitioner is competent to furnish two sureties but only for some inconvenience, he is seeking this exemption. 4. In the reply as well as the documents which have been placed on record, there is nothing to show that the petitioner while under parole has misused his liberty in the past or committed any crime as such. Moreover, we find that he has undergone 13 years' of jail sentence by now. Right now, as stated, he is in the open jail and he has already furnished one surety of Rs.50,000/- which stands on date to secure his return to open jail. 5. Taking into consideration the special circumstances, we are of the view that now at this stage, the petitioner can be allowed to avail the benefit of parole for a period of 40 days only on personal bond without insisting on furnishing two sureties. 6. 5. Taking into consideration the special circumstances, we are of the view that now at this stage, the petitioner can be allowed to avail the benefit of parole for a period of 40 days only on personal bond without insisting on furnishing two sureties. 6. In view of the above, the petitioner shall be released on parole for a period of 40 days only on personal bond of the amount as directed by the Committee. However, the condition with regard to furnishing two sureties shall stand relaxed. 7. In view of the observations foregoing, the present criminal writ petition stands disposed of.