JUDGMENT Z. A. HAQ, J. :- Heard. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the rival parties. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough. The application of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the petitioner when earlier released on furlough had not surrendered on the scheduled date and was arrested and brought back by the police to the prison after a period of 22 days. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court respondent No.2 has filed reply and has stated that looking to the previous record of the petitioner and the adverse police report, the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough is rejected under the provisions of Rule 4(4), (6) & (10) of the Prisons (Bombay Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents/ State and have examined the record. 6. The petitioner was earlier released on furlough on 10th June, 2011 for two weeks but he had not surrendered voluntarily on the scheduled date and he was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. Respondent No.2 has relied on the provisions of Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground of the above mentioned default on the part of the petitioner. The provisions of Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 are considered in the case of Bhikhabhai Vs. State, reported in AIR 1987 Guj. 136 by Full Bench of Gujrat High Court and it is held that the word 'shall' occurring in Rule 4 of the Rules is directory and not mandatory. The Full Bench of the Gujrat High Court in the above referred judgment has laid down that the prisoner who commits default as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 is not totally ineligible for being released on furlough and his application has to be considered on merits. The impugned order shows that the petitioner has undergone punishment for the period of three years ten months and one day at the time of making of the application. The impugned order shows that the petitioner has undergone punishment for the period of three years ten months and one day at the time of making of the application. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner be released on furlough for a period of two weeks. Therefore, we pass the following order. ORDER The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough for the period of two weeks from today on furnishing surety. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner (Mr. M.M.Kalar) is quantified at Rs. One Thousand only. Petition allowed.