Allowed¶15

Jabid v. State NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC9 Jan 2026BAIL APPLN./73/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; corrigendum/clerical-error correction; CRL.M.A. 7794/2026 in Bail Appln. 73/2026; Jabid v. State NCT of Delhi; Manoj Jain, J.; order dated 16.03.2026 correcting order dated 09.01.2026; counsel appearance erroneously recorded as Kanhaiya Mittal, corrected to Vivek Kr. Chaudhary, Diwangi Gupta, Sonia and Rohit; no statutory provisions or precedent cases discussed; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Correction of the counsel appearance recorded in the order dated 09.01.2026: the appearance of Mr. Vivek Kr. Chaudhary, Ms. Diwangi Gupta, Ms. Sonia and Mr. Rohit is to be regarded as the appearance of counsel(s) for the applicant for 09.01.2026, and the correcting order is to be uploaded as a corrigendum to the order dated 09.01.2026. ¶15

Jabid Vs State NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the application (CRL.M.A. 7794/2026) seeking correction of the clerical error in the order dated 09.01.2026 — whereby Mr. Kanhaiya Mittal was shown, instead of the advocates who actually represented him, as counsel for the applicant — ought to be allowed.

¶13

Court's answer

The recording of Mr. Kanhaiya Mittal as counsel for the applicant in the order dated 09.01.2026 was on account of some clerical error or inadvertence; the applicant had in fact been represented by Mr. Vivek Kr. Chaudhary, Ms. Diwangi Gupta, Ms. Sonia and Mr. Rohit.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Since the misrecording is purely an inadvertent typographical error, the correction application is allowed.

¶15

Key takeaways

The appearance of Mr. Vivek Kr. Chaudhary, Advocate, Ms. Diwangi Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Sonia, Advocate and Mr. Rohit, Advocate is to be regarded as the appearance of counsel(s) for the applicant for 09.01.2026.ratio¶19
This order is to be uploaded as a corrigendum to the order dated 09.01.2026.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), order dated 16.03.2026 in CRL.M.A. 7794/2026 in Bail Appln. 73/2026, Jabid v. State NCT of Delhi: Application allowed correcting a clerical/typographical error in the order dated 09.01.2026 disposing of the bail application, wherein Mr. Kanhaiya Mittal had been erroneously shown as counsel for the applicant. The Court recorded that the applicant was in fact represented on 09.01.2026 by Mr. Vivek Kr. Chaudhary, Ms. Diwangi Gupta, Ms. Sonia and Mr. Rohit, Advocates, and directed that their appearance be regarded as the appearance of counsel(s) for the applicant for 09.01.2026; the order is to be uploaded as a corrigendum. Learned APP for the State raised no objection.

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 73/2026 JABID

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Diwangi Gupta, Advocate (through V.C.).

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Naresh Kumar.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 16.03.2026 CRL.M.A. 7794/2026 (for correction of clerical error in the order dated

¶12

09.01.2026)

¶13

The abovesaid application has been moved seeking correction of clerical error in order dated 09.01.2026 whereby while disposing of the bail application, the presence of Mr. Kanhaiya Mittal was shown as counsel for the applicant. It is, however, informed that the abovesaid appearance was on account of some clerical error or inadvertence as the applicant was represented by Mr. Vivek Kr. Chaudhary, Advocate, Ms. Diwangi Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Sonia, Advocate and Mr. Rohit, Advocate.

¶14

Learned APP for the State has no objection if the requisite correction is made.

¶15

Since it is purely an inadvertent typographical error, the present application is allowed with the direction that the appearance of Mr. Vivek Kr.

¶16

BAIL APPLN. 73/2026 1

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2026 at 15:06:08

¶19

Chaudhary, Advocate, Ms. Diwangi Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Sonia, Advocate and Mr. Rohit, Advocate be regarded as appearance of counsel(s) for the applicant for 09.01.2026.

¶20

This order be also uploaded as corrigendum to the order dated 09.01.2026.

¶21

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶22

MARCH 16, 2026/ss/sa

¶23

BAIL APPLN. 73/2026 2

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2026 at 15:06:08

Jabid v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabid v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balraj Vs State & Anr.

Karan Mandal Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sumit Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mohd Fahad Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Mohd Jamal and Ors. Vs Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Devesh Yadav Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.