JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities below have erroneously rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for furlough. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough leave. 3. In a contrast, the learned APP submits that in view of the reply filed on behalf of the authorities, it is clear that the petitioner on previous occasion, when released on parole or furlough leave, surrendered late and therefore, he is not entitled to be released, as claimed by him. 4. The reply filed on behalf of the authorities show that on previous occasion, when the petitioner was released on parole leave in the year 2011, he surrendered himself late, however, by two days only and at that point of time, he was not required to be brought to prison by the police authorities. Though in 2012, when he was released on furlough leave, he was required to be brought to prison by the police authorities, however, subsequently the authorities considered his parole leave favourably and he was granted parole leave and at that time he surrendered himself late by 97 days. Lastly, in 2014, when the petitioner was released on parole leave, his parole leave was to expire on 11.03.2015, however, the petitioner himself surrendered on 10.03.2015 i.e. prior to expiry of parole period. 5. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner to release him on furlough leave has to be considered favourably and it is accordingly considered favourably, resulting into making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (3) of the petition. 6. Hence, the present Criminal Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.