ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking 30 days parole from the actual date of release. 2. Submissions have been made that petitioner was accorded first 20 days parole and he did not report on the scheduled date. Whereafter, 7 days regular parole was denied to the petitioner, against which petitioner approached this Court by filing DBCRLWP No.153/2020, which was allowed by the Court. Whereafter, again when the petitioner sought 15 days parole, which was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court by filing DBCRLWP No.451/2021, which was allowed on 28.09.2021. 3. Now, again the prayer made for 30 days parole has been rejected, which is not justified. 4. A response to the petition has been filed inter-alia indicating that as the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 460 IPC, in terms of provisions of Rule 16(2)(b) of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (‘Rules of 2021’) he is not entitled for parole. 5. Further submissions have been made that as the petitioner did not report after completion of the first parole, he is not entitled to the relief as prayed in the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the petitioner was accorded parole by this Court for seven days and fifteen days in DBCRLWP No.153/2020 & 451/2021 respectively, the denial of the parole by the respondents now is not justified. 7. Learned GA with reference to the provisions of Rules of 2021 reiterated the submissions. It was submitted that under Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (‘Rules of 1958’) under which the petitioner was first granted the two paroles, the provision though prohibits release of the convict under Section 460 IPC, however, ‘Ordinarily’ has been used and, therefore, the petition deserves rejection. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. The fact that conviction of the petitioner has taken place before coming into force the Rules of 2021 and this Court in Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DBCRLWP No.180/2022, decided on 27.03.2023 has come to the following conclusion:- “The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner was convicted on 17.07.2011 and in the past he has been granted benefit of parole on several occasions. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DBCRLWP No.180/2022, decided on 27.03.2023 has come to the following conclusion:- “The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner was convicted on 17.07.2011 and in the past he has been granted benefit of parole on several occasions. The present application has been rejected by the District Parole Committee only on account of provisions of Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules 2021, wherein, it is inter-alia provided that the prisoners convicted under Section 364 IPC shall not be eligible for release on parole. The plea raised is that the Rules 2021, in view of the fact that petitioner was convicted on 17.07.2011 and the Rules came into force on 30.06.2021, would have no application. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh (supra) inter-alia observed as under:- “4 Following the law laid down by this Court, in determining the entitlement of a convict for premature release, the policy of the State Government on the date of the conviction would have to be the determinative factor. However, if the policy which was prevalent on the date of the conviction is subsequently liberalised to provide more beneficial terms, those should also be borne in mind.” (emphasis supplied) After making the above observations, the Court inter-alia came to the following conclusion:- “15 Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the circumstances which have been set out in the earlier part of this order order should merit fresh consideration by the State Government. Since the grant of premature release is essentially an executive function relatable to Article 161 of the Constitution, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct that the matter should be reevaluated bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances some of which have been noted above. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that if the fact that the petitioner was involved in a murder, following a money dispute, is held to be a ground for rejection of his 5 application for premature release, he would be effectively debarred from seeking premature release at any point of time in the future though the co-accused involved in the same crime have since been released. It merits emphasis that this is not a ground for rejection in the policy of 9 July 1992. 16. It merits emphasis that this is not a ground for rejection in the policy of 9 July 1992. 16. In the circumstances, we direct the competent authority of the State Government to reconsider the application of the petitioner for the grant of premature release after duly applying its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, including those which have been noted above. The application shall be considered in accordance with the policy document dated 9 July 1992 which held the field on the date of the conviction. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months.” (emphasis supplied) It can be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that policy of the State on the date of conviction would be the determinative factor and in case the policy is subsequently liberalized, the same would be taken into consideration while dealing with the application of premature release by the Authorities. A Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) following the judgment in the case of Hitesh (supra) inter-alia came to the following conclusion:- “10. In view of judgment of Hitesh @ Bavko Shivshankar Dave vs State of Gujarat (supra) and as per the Rules prevalent at the time of his conviction, petitioner is entitled to be released on permanent parole. Also, taking note of the fact that co-accused have been given benefit of permanent parole, the writ petition(parole) deserves to be allowed.” In view of the above, the rejection of petitioner’s application by the District Parole Committee relying on the provisions of Rules 2021 cannot be sustained. Insofar as, the Rules 1958 are concerned, the right to get parole under Provisions of Rule 14 of the said Rule 1958, in case, where a person has been convicted for the offence inter-alia under Section 364 IPC is not absolute. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 02.11.2021 (Annex.1) passed by the District Parole Committee qua the petitioner is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of Rules 1958 and the fact that petitioner was accorded parole on several occasions earlier. Needful may be done by the Committee within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.” 9. The matter is remanded back to the Committee to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of Rules 1958 and the fact that petitioner was accorded parole on several occasions earlier. Needful may be done by the Committee within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.” 9. In such circumstances, Rules of 1958 would apply and the fact that petitioner has been granted benefit of parole by this Court on two earlier occasions in DBCRLWP No.153/2020 & 451/2021, the petition deserves acceptance. 10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 18.01.2023 (Annex.R/2) is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on third 30 days parole upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur on the usual terms and conditions. 11. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole. The term of parole shall be computed from the date of his actual release.