Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1647 (JHR)

Birendra Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-09-17

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Ms. Renu Bala, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Counsel for the state is present. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that this Cr. M.P. No. 2634 of 2019 has been filed for modification of the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in B.A. No. 3692 of 2019 by this Court to the extent that: - (i) The case number may be corrected as "Chipadohar P.S. Case No. 04/2019" in place of "Latehar P.S. Case No. 04/2019". (ii) The condition that one of the bailors should be the Government Servant may be exempted or relaxed to close relatives of the petitioners. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of the police station was wrongly mentioned in bail petition being B.A. No. 3692 of 2019 itself and this error was not even pointed out by the Office of this Court and ultimately the case was taken up and bail was granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, she submits that she may be permitted to correct the name of police station in the bail petition. She further submits that the bail order be accordingly modified and further the aforesaid condition of the bail may also be modified. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that the name of the police station having been wrongly mentioned in the bail application itself, the same may not be rectified at this stage, in as much as, the necessary scrutiny of the bail application by the Office of the High Court was not taken up, considering the name of the police station. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there was an error in the name of the police station in the bail petition itself, this Court is not inclined to modify the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in B.A. No. 3692 of 2019 and accordingly the present Cr. M.P. No. 2634 of 2019 is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh bail application which will be considered on its own merit. 8. M.P. No. 2634 of 2019 is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh bail application which will be considered on its own merit. 8. The learned Registrar General is directed to conduct an enquiry as to why and under what circumstances, the Office did not point out the error in the name of the concerned police station in the bail application filed by the petitioners being B.A. No. 3692 of 2019 and fix the responsibility of the erring person/persons. After the enquiry, the learned Registrar General may proceed in the administrative side in accordance with law. 9. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX.