Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9863 of 2025 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88481 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2024 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Yadav, S/o Late Mukhdeo Singh, Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.S.- Phesar, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Electrical Executive Engineer, Powre Supply Division, Aurangabad Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP For the SBPDCL :
Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Addl. S.C.
Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-02-2025 The present petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 88481 of 2024 to the extent that in satisfaction portion of the petition, it has wrongly been mentioned "learned C.J.M., Aurangabad" instead of "learned Special Court (Electricity) Magadh Area, Gaya".
2. It appears that vide order dated 10.01.2025, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with a direction to surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks but due to mistake in the satisfaction portion of his petition, the petitioner could not surrender.
3. The order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9863 of 2025(2) dt.21-02-2025 2/2 88481 of 2024 is modified to the extent that the paragraph 6 of that order be read as "learned Special Court (Electricity) Magadha Area, Gaya" instead of "learned C.J.M., Aurangabad" and the time granted to the petitioner in the said order to surrender in the Court below is also extended by a further period of four weeks from today.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the content of the modification application, this court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner.
5. The remaining part of the order shall remain unchanged.
6. The application stands allowed to the above extent. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T