Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6312/2020partly allowed disposal

Umesh Shankar Ravi v. The State Of Bihar

2020-09-22Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6312 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-397 Year-2019 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Umesh Shankar Ravi Son of Ramashankar Ravi Resident of Village - Malahi, P.S.- Sursand, Distt - Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Nagina Kumari Wife of Umesh Shankar Ravi Resident of Village - Malahi, P.S.- Sursand, P.S.- Riga, Distt - Sitamarhi. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dinesh Jha,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-10-2020 The matter has been placed before this Court at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner through e-mentioning. It is pointed out that in the order dated 22.09.2020 the case no. at page 3 of the order has been mentioned as 'Complaint Case No. C1/297/19' whereas the correct case no. should be 'Complaint Case No. C1/397/19'.

Learned counsel further points out that in fact because of a typographical error by him in the petition itself the Court to whose satisfaction bail bonds have to be submitted has been mentioned 'the court of learned S.D.J.M., Pupri at Sitamarhi' whereas the correct description of the Court should be 'the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi'.

Learned counsel submits that considering the present

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6312 of 2020(4) dt.21-10-2020 2/2 pandemic period and that today is the last working day before start of holidays, the Court may permit him to remove the defect after physical presence of the learned Advocate is allowed in Court but for that let the petitioner not suffer.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant are present.

In the kind of submissions noticed hereinabove, this Court directs that the description of the court to whose satisfaction the bail bonds have to be submitted be read as 'the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi' and the correct case no. be taken as 'Complaint Case No. C1/397/19'.

As a result of the aforesaid corrections now the petitioner is being granted four weeks' further time from today to visit the house of O.P. No. 2 and bring her back and to surrender in the learned court below within a period of two weeks after bringing back O.P. No. 2. The rest of the order dated 22.09.2020 shall remain intact. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.