Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21935/2018dismissed

Kamlesh Yadav And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-05-16Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21935 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -21 Year- 2017 Thana -SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAHARSA ======================================================

1. Kamlesh Yadav, S/o Brahamdeo Yadav

2. Birendra Yadav, S/o Yugeshwar Yadav, both residents of village Sattar, P.S. Bihra, District Saharsa

3. Sipahi Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Singh @ Sipahi Praveen Kumar Singh, S/o Raj Narayan Singh, resident of village Jalalpur, P.S. Belchi, District Patna .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Usha Devi, w/o Late Siwan Yadav, resident of village Sattar, P.S. Bihra, Dist. Saharsa .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2018 This has come under the heading 'To Be Mentioned' at the instance of the petitioners stating that in the order dated 16.5.2018 though only petitioner No.1 has been mentioned but address and parentage are wrongly mentioned and there were three petitioners but names of others have not been mentioned and also name of opposite party No.2 has wrongly been mentioned in the said order.

In the said circumstances, the order dated 16.5.2018 stands modified to the extent that names of three petitioners, as stated above, should correctly be read as Kamlesh Yadav, son of Brahamdeo Yadav, Birendra Yadav, son of Yugeshwar Yadav and Sipahi Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Singh @ Sipahi Praveen

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21935 of 2018 (4) dt.22-06-2018 2/2 Kumar Singh and also name of opposite party No.2 should correctly be read as Usha Devi, W/o Late Siwan Yadav, resident of village Sattar, P.S. Bihra, District Saharsa and wherever in the order 'petitioner' have been mentioned the same should correctly be read as 'petitioners'.

Accordingly, the order dated 16.5.2018 stands modified. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned forthwith.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U