Rudhran @ Rudhra Pandiyan v. State Rep.By

Crl.M.P.No.3451 of 2021 in Crl.O.P.No.1940 of 2021 V.BHARATHIDASAN.J.

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The above petition is filed seeking to correct the offences mentioned in the bail application and consequently in the order passed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he mentioned the offences as Section 447, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act r/w Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act instead of Section 447, 294(b) 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 66A of Information Technology Act. Hence, according to the learned counsel amendment is necessary.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that he has no objection in allowing this petition.

4. Thus, this petition is allowed. Instead of Section 447, 294(b) 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 66A of Information Technology Act, Section 447, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act r/w Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act should be substituted where ever it occurred in the original petition and in order of this court dated 17.02.2021 made in Crl.O.P.No.1940 of 2021.

19..03..2021 kmk Note: The Registry is directed to carryout necessary amendment and issue fresh copy of the corrected order to the parties concerned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1/2

V.BHARATHIDASAN.J., kmk Crl.M.P.No.3451 of 2021 in Crl.O.P.No.1940 of 2021 19..03..2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/2