[1] DBCWP(PAROLE)NO. 6712/2010 RAMU Vs. STATE & ORS. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION(PAROLE) NO.6712/2010 RAMU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER :: 17.08.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENA V. GOMBER Mr. S.P. Poshwal, for the petitioner. Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. **** Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Convict-petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of second parole of 30 days. The respondents in their reply to writ petition have stated that parole application of petitioner was rejected on the ground of adverse report of Superintendent of Police. Learned Additional Govt. Counsel was directed to file additional affidavit about conduct of petitioner during first parole period and as directed, the respondents have filed additional affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that petitioner has availed first regular parole w.e.f. 02.07.2008 to 21.07.2008 and as per jail record, there is no complaint against him, hence, the conduct [2] DBCWP(PAROLE)NO. 6712/2010 RAMU Vs. STATE & ORS. of petitioner during first regular parole was satisfactory. So far as second report of Social Welfare Department dated 04.08.2010 is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner referred earlier report of same Department dated 31.12.2009 and contended that earlier a positive report was given by the Social Welfare Department, whereas now an adverse report has been given without any change of circumstances, therefore, the second report of the Social Welfare Department is liable to be rejected. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The conduct of petitioner during jail custody and during first parole period was satisfactory. In these circumstances, we are inclined to allow this application. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Ramu S/o Bhola be released on second parole of 30 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. It will be open for the Jail Superintendent to impose any other condition to secure the presence of petitioner. [3] DBCWP(PAROLE)NO. 6712/2010 RAMU Vs. STATE & ORS. A copy of this order may be sent to convict-petitioner for information and to Jail Superintendent concerned for compliance. (MEENA V. GOMBER),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/