1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1169 OF 2009 Shri Abdul Siraj Basid Kazi .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs.S.T.Kazi, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 27th January 2010 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved on account of refusal of the respondents to grant furlough to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner by an application dated 27.4.2009 had sought his release on furlough. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that since the brothers of the petitioner had absconded on their being released on furlough/parole, the petitioner was likely to abscond. The petitioner had accordingly forwarded a communication to this Court which came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition No.609 of 2009. This Court by its order dated 3.12.2009 while dismissing the petition had granted liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh as the affidavit-in-reply disclosed that the brothers of the petitioner had been arrested. It appears that the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid order did not apply afresh and instead has forwarded a communication to this Court challenging the 2 same order which was subject matter of challenge in the earlier petition. On receipt of the aforesaid communication the said communication came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition No.1169 of 2009. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mrs.S.T.Kazi to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 2. In the light of the fact that this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh, by its order dated 3.12.2009 and in the light of the fact that the petitioner has not filed an application afresh pursuant thereto, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. We, however, again grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh which the authorities shall decide it, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs with the aforesaid liberty. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/-. Since the petitioner is in jail, copy of this order be transmitted to the petitioner. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1169.09criwp) 3