Single judge order modifying a bail order by correcting an erroneous reference to a registered case number, disposed of the application stated the modification, and directed transmission of the order via fax to the concerned court.
Order dated 17.10.2020 modified to reflect correct case number G.R. No. 1196 of 2019.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 313 of 2021
Irfan Khan @ Irfan Ansari. ...….Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand. ....Opposite Party. ---Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. -----
05/15-2-2022 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sinha, learned counsel for the State, is present.
Defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.
This application has been preferred by the petitioner for modification of the order dated 17.10.2020, passed in B.A. No. 7913 of 2020.
The modification, which has been sought for, is with respect to G.R. No. 1196 of 2019, which has wrongly been mentioned in the order dated 17.10.2020 as G.R. No. 170 of 2019.
The same was on account of the inadvertent error, which had crept up in the application for bail preferred by the petitioner.
On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the order dated 17.10.2020, passed in B.A. No. 7913 of 2020 is modified to the extent that wherever G.R. Case No. 170 of 2019 is mentioned, the same shall now be read as G.R. No. 1196 of 2019.
This application stands disposed off with the aforementioned modification.
Let a copy of the order be sent through Fax to the court concerned.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-
Irfan Khan @ Irfan Ansari
State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
