1 appln389.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.389 OF 2010 UB WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2010 Anil Sukhadeo Teltumbade. ....Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr.N.N.Gavankar i/b. Arfan Sait, advocate for applicant. Mr. P.A.Pol, PP for State. CORAM:­ A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:­ OCTOBER 7, 2010. P.C. 1. This application is filed on the assertion that incorrect statement was made before us on 8th September, 2010 on behalf of the State to the effect that earlier Writ Petition No.139 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner had assailed selfsame order dated 19th January, 2010. We have perused the original paper book in Writ Petition No.139 of 2010. It is noticed that communication received by the Public Prosecutor dated 4th February, 2010 was taken on record and marked “X”. The Court however, while disposing earlier Writ Petition No.139 of 2010, specifically stated that the Petitioner's application for furlough has been rejected. That fact has been mentioned in the letter petition sent by the 2 appln389.10 Petitioner through jail. From the tenor of order dated 5th February, 2010, it is amply clear that the Court was made aware of the fact that furlough leave application of the Petitioner was rejected by the appropriate authority vide order dated 19th January, 2010. The fact that the Respondents have now placed on record communication dated 4th February, 2010 at page 25, which is different than the one, which has been already taken on record and marked as “X” on the earlier occasion does not make any difference to the fact situation. The fact remains that Petitioner's furlough leave application was rejected by the appropriate authority, whereafter, the Petitioner approached this court for being released on furlough or parole basis, which letter Petition sent through jail was considered and rejected after hearing the appointed counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Considered thus, there is no reason to recall our order dated 8th September, 20109. This application is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to apply for review of the order dated 5th February, 2010, if so advised. Needless to observe that we are not expressing any opinion about the maintainability or otherwise of the proposed proceedings. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)