Batoran Mahto @ Batoran Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25164 of 2021 Arising out of CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31852 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2018 Thana- JURAWANPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Batoran Mahto @ Batoran Rai, age 60 years, Male Son of Dharamlal Mahto. 2.

Shiv Rai, age 47 years, Male Son of Late Musafir Rai. 3.

Bhagwan Mahto, age 48 years, Male Son of Ram Das Mahto. All resident of Village - Raghopur, PS - Jurawanpur, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rina Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-08-2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Ms. Rina Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The present application has been filed seeking modification of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020, the name of the father of the petitioner no. 2 and that of petitioner no. 3 have been erroneously interchanged. It was submitted that the name of father

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25164 of 2021 dt.18-08-2021 2/3 of petitioner no. 2 Shiv Rai is Late Musafir Rai which has been shown to be the name of the father of petitioner no. 3, Bhagwan Mahto and the name of father of petitioner no. 3, Bhagwan Mahto is Ram Das Mahto who has been shown to be father of petitioner no. 2, Shiv Rai. Learned counsel submitted that she may be permitted to correct the name of father of petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the main petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020 as also in the Vakalatnama and the Court may then allow such correction to be made in the cause title of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.

5. Learned APP does not object.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that such error is due to inadvertent typographical error.

7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make correction in the name of the father of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the main petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020 and the Vakalatnama; and as a consequence, the said correction in the name of the father of petitioners no. 2 and 3 be also incorporated in judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25164 of 2021 dt.18-08-2021 3/3

8. The rest of the aforesaid judgment and order shall remain unchanged.

9. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T