[1] DBCWP(PAROLE) NO. 6625/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PAROLE) NO. 6625/2010 SHYOJIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER: 14.07.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENA V. GOMBER Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Mehla, Public Prosecutor for State. **** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The convict-petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition to grant him third parole of 40 days. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto they have filed reply to writ petition, wherein it is mentioned that conduct of the petitioner during custody in jail is unsatisfactory. It is also mentioned that petitioner has earned jail punishment on 15.01.2010. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. One of the conditions for grant of parole under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 is that conduct of convict during custody in jail should be satisfactory. Since one of the conditions is not fulfilled in the present case, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for [2] DBCWP(PAROLE) NO. 6625/2010 grant of parole, as prayed in the writ petition. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (MEENA V. GOMBER),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/