Judgment Deshmukh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (appointed) and the learned A.P.P. For the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 3. The counsel appearing for the petitioner took us to the letter annexed to the petition, Exh. C (page 13). With the assistance of the counsel, we have seen prayers made by the petitioner in his letter (page 15). The grievance of the petitioner is that he sought furlough leave. His application is pending before the respondents. His brother Shaikh Salim Shaikh Akbar is not ready to accept the surety. Faced with this difficulty, the petitioner has prayed that he be released on furlough leave on executing P.R. Bond. The issue, whether the prisoner can be released on executing the P.R. Bond, in case he is entitled for furlough leave, is no more in res-integra in view of the law laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak s/o Sudhakar Wakalekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2011 (2) B.C.R. (Cri.) 586. The learned APP fairly concedes that the said issue has been decided. 4. In this view of the matter, we direct the respondents to decide and dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 14.11.2011 for grant of furlough leave on execution of P.R. bond. The respondents shall pass appropriate order within a period of three weeks from today. The learned APP to communicate this order to the respondents. Apart from the communication by the learned APP, we direct the Registry to inform the petitioner, who is in jail, regarding passing of this order. 5. Criminal writ petition is accordingly partly allowed and disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate order and to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave and his release on executing P.R. bond. 6. Rule is made absolute partly. 7. We quantify the fees payable to advocate Mr. Nandedkar (appointed) for conducting this matter at Rs.1500/-.