← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/984/2020disposed off

Arti Vaishnav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2020-08-11Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 984 of 2020 • Arti Vaishnav, W/o. Bhupendra Vaishnav, Aged about 32 years • Bhupendra Vaishnav S/o. Dwarika Das Vaishnav, Aged about 38 yars, Occupation Journalist (Bureau Chief Anadi TV) Both R/o. Village Mahaka, Tahsil and Thana Kharsia, Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station -Kharsia, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri N.K.Malviya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri H.S.Ahluwalia, Dy.AG Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 11/08/2020 Registry has pointed out some default in the petition. The default pointed out by the Registry is overruled. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking modification in the order dated 17.06.2020 passed by this Court in MCRC No.3110/2020.

From perusal of the record, it appears that in the order passed in MCRC No.3110/2020, in paragraph 12 it was mentioned as under: "It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bonds already furnished in view of the order passed by the High Power Committee constituted in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 23.03.2020 in the

matter of In Re: Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 1/2020), he need not furnish bail bonds afresh and the bail bonds already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bonds furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bonds within four weeks' from today."

Therefore, when counsel for the petitioners appeared before the trial court to furnish the bail bonds on 24.07.2020, the same has been rejected.

Taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioners, it is ordered that the paragraph No.12 stands deleted and rest of the order shall remain as it is.

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge suguna