JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.1, dated 20.3.2017, thereby rejecting the application for grant of furlough leave. 3. The petitioner/convict, who is presently lodged in Central Prison, Nagpur, is undergoing sentence of life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 as per the judgment and order passed by the learned 11th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 4. The petitioner had applied for grant of furlough leave to the respondent no.1 and by order dated 20.3.2017, his application was rejected on the ground of over stay. On earlier occasion, the petitioner was required to be arrested. 5. Mr. Samundre, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by inviting our attention to the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 608/2016 and 647/2016 filed by the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had sought parole leave on account of death of his grandmother and as the application was rejected, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Cri.W.P. No. 608/16. He submitted that by order dated 05.8.2016, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was released on parole for a period of seven days, on completion of the formalities by the respondent-authorities. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner was required to overstay for conducting last rites and rituals of his grandmother. As such, the petitioner had submitted an application for extension and as the application was pending before the respondent-authorities, the petitioner was again required to file Criminal Writ Petition No. 647/2016 and by order, dated 22.8.2016, this Court directed the respondent-authorities to consider the application expeditiously. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, these facts are not taken into consideration by the respondent-authorities while passing the impugned order and on a mechanical and technical approach rejected the application. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then by inviting our attention to the order of this Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 27/2016 and 57/2016, dated 16.3.2016, submitted that in the identical situation, this Court allowed the petitions by directing the respondent-authorities to reconsider the applications for grant of furlough by examining the sufficiency of the reasons assigned by the petitioners for overstay. 7. 27/2016 and 57/2016, dated 16.3.2016, submitted that in the identical situation, this Court allowed the petitions by directing the respondent-authorities to reconsider the applications for grant of furlough by examining the sufficiency of the reasons assigned by the petitioners for overstay. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the respondent-authorities by exercising the powers under the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, more particularly Sections 4(4) and 4(10), rejected the application of the petitioner on account of overstay. 8. In view of above referred facts, more particularly in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 27/2016 and 57/2016, wherein in identical circumstances this Court allowed the petitions with direction to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the application for grant of furlough, we see no reason to take different view than the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. 9. In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.3.2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the application moved by the petitioner for grant of furlough and also examine the sufficiency of reasons assigned by the petitioner for overstaying. By undertaking the exercise as directed by this Court, the application be decided as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three weeks from today. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.