Dismissed

Rajkumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Sept 2021CRMP/824/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order rejecting bail where the bail application and the impugned order cited the wrong crime number. The High Court dismissed the petition for modification, stating the court cannot review its own order but directed the petitioner to file a fresh bail application for the correct crime number.

What did the court decide?

Application for modification of the impugned order dismissed. Petitioner allowed to file a fresh bail application for the correct crime number.

Rajkumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 824 of 2021

¶5

Rajkumar Verma S/o Mulchand Verma, aged about 36 years, R/o Purani Basti, Darri P.S. Darri, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh

¶6

------Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through: Station House Officer, Police Station Darri, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

------- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Adv.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

06/09/2021

¶14

Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the order was passed in MCRC No. 7039/2020, in the rejection order of the trial Court crime number 178/2019 is mentioned. Based on the crime number mentioned in the rejection order crime number 178/2019 is mentioned in the application for grant of bail filed under Section 439 of CrPC in MCRC No. 7039/2020. After passing of the order on 10.12.2020 when it was produced before the court below for furnishing bail it revealed that the correct crime number in which the applicant is arrested is 178/2020. After coming to the knowledge of mentioning of crime number, applicant has filed an application for correction of crime number in the rejection order itself which came to be allowed on 20.07.2021. Learned Court below has passed an order of correcting crime number from 178/2019 to 178/2020. He submits that as in the rejection order itself crime number got corrected, impugned order dated 10.12.2020 be accordingly modified.

¶15

¶16

Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned State counsel would submit that as there is no typographical error on the part of learned counsel at the time of filing of bail application but in the impugned order itself crime number has been wrongly mentioned, the order of modification of the impugned order cannot be passed as it will be reviewing of the impugned order.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties.

¶18

It is a case of petitioner himself that in the impugned order of MCRC No. 7039/2020 itself the crime number is mentioned as 178/2019 and on the date of considering the application for grant of bail in MCRC No. 7039/2020 Court has considered the crime number as mentioned in the impugned order challenged in that proceedings and mentioned in the bail application as 178/2019, I am of the view that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, application for modification of order impugned cannot be allowed, hence, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of rejection of his bail application in crime number 178/2020 by filing afresh application, in accordance with law.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶21

Pawan

Rajkumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant @ Harshit Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niranjan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinooram Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Rajkumari Sen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maniram Jangade Vs State of Chhattisgarh