ORDER M. Nagaprasanna, J. The petitioners are before this Court seeking their release on grant of general parole for the days that they are entitled to under the Police Act, 1861. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Prasanna Kumar P. Daroji, appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. K.P.Yoganna, appearing for the respondents. 3. All the petitioners get embroiled in a crime, which leads to their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC inter alia. The imprisonment certificate of all the petitioners would indicate that they are in prison for the last 16 to 18 years and their conduct in the prison has been satisfactory. On that score, the petitioners are now wanting their release on general parole. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had been released on parole earlier and even the petitioner Nos.3 and 4. The difference between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are recommended by the Committee for their premature release on account of their conduct, while the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 do suffer certain disability. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions would submit that petitioner No.1 while in custody is found in possession of 1.3 kilograms of ganja and therefore, his conduct in the prison is not satisfactory. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, certain crimes are registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of IPC inter alia, the crimes that he has committed while he was out on grant of parole. He would submit that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 should not be released on a general parole. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply to the said submission would add that against petitioner No.1, notwithstanding the fact that 1.3 kilograms of ganja was found in the judicial custody, no FIR is registered against him. Be those submissions as they are. 7. It is not in dispute that the cases of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are recommended by the Committee for their premature release on account of their conduct in the prison and then not getting involved in any offence after the judicial custody. Be those submissions as they are. 7. It is not in dispute that the cases of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are recommended by the Committee for their premature release on account of their conduct in the prison and then not getting involved in any offence after the judicial custody. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, as observed hereinabove, petitioner No.1 is found in possession of 1.3 kilograms of ganja in the prison and petitioner No.2 get embroiled in further crime for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of IPC inter alia. 8. Therefore, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to parole at this juncture. However, liberty is reserved to them to seek the same, at any later point in time. Insofar as petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, since their cases are already recommended for premature release by the Committee and the matter is pending before the State Government, I deem it appropriate to grant general parole to petitioner Nos.3 and 4 for a period of 30 days and reject the same insofar petitioner Nos.1 and 2, with the aforesaid liberty. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are granted general parole and the prayer sought by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is rejected. (iii) Mandamus issues to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and release the detenue/Dyamesha, (CTP No.7770) and detenue/N.Nataraja (CTP No.13695) on general parole for a period of 30 days from the forenoon of 22.03.2024, till the evening of 20.04.2024. (iv) Petitioner No.3 - convict (CTP No.7770) and petitioner No.4 - convict (CTP No.13695) - shall mark their attendance in the jurisdictional police stations, weekly once throughout the period of their parole and it would be the responsibility of the jurisdictional police to take them to gaol, in the event, the convicts (CTP Nos.7770 and 13695) would evade going back to the gaol, after the expiry of the period of general parole. (v) Respondent No.3 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenues to the gaol and that they shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole. (vi) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.3, by way of electronic mail, forthwith. (v) Respondent No.3 shall stipulate strict conditions as are usually stipulated, to ensure return of the detenues to the gaol and that they shall not commit any other offence during the period of parole. (vi) Registry is directed to communicate this order to respondent No.3, by way of electronic mail, forthwith. (vii) Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to seek extension of parole, which shall be considered looking at their conduct, while they are out on parole.