IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE QF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUI BILASPUR^ Cr.M.P. No. .'^..'l .^. ./2010 (Arisugg-out oforder dated 15/05/2009^igssed in M.Cr,C.(A.) No. 221/200.9 by Honlile Justice Shri Pritenker Diwarker) ^ E:;f APPLICANT:^y^ <^3f;^^ ^^.5%^ Dhaja Ram Choudhary S/o Ram Lal aged about 52 years, R/o Village Bagbahar, Police Station Bagbahar, Tah Patthalgaon, Distt Jashpur (C.G.) A- \N-<v~ RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bagbahar, Distt Jashpur (C.G.) 4-— APRLICATIGN UNDER SECTIQN _4fc OF COQE OF CRIMINAL PROeEDtfKB EOR CGRRECnQN •^IN ORDER DATED : f S'- S~-'2-e5<!7 fT5^%7266s|PASSEKlNM.C^.C.fA)N0.22l72609'''~~ - - -iQiL.yiu-lRr fpr'tirtn. HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker APPLICANT Cr.M.P. No. 718 of 2010 Dhaja Ram Choudhary RESPQN&ENT State of Chhattisgarh Shri Arun Shukia, counsel for the appiicant. Shri Vivek Shcrma, PL for the State/respondent. Present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for correction in the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 221/2009 whereby on account of typographical mistake in the order it has been mentioned that the bail application was filed.under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereas it WGS filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Counsel for ths petitioner submits'that till date the petitioner has not been • arrested and this typographical • mistake has been detected by the applicant much after passine of the order and, therefore, he could not file an application before this court on an early occasion. 1 3. Counse! for the State submits that he has no objection if the said order is corrected. r 'w 4. Considerinq the facts d circumstaices the order dated 15.5.2009 is directed to be corrected and the same would read as foliows:- "Case of the prosecution in brief is that a written report was lodged by one Suresh Vadav that the sngine of his tractor has been changed by t-he applicant from that of his tractor's engine. Counsel for the appiicant submits that in fact the tractor was seized by the poiice in connection with an offence punishabi'e under Section 304-.A of the Indian Penal Code and it is in the poiice station where someone has changed the engine. He submits that the applicant has been fdseiy implicated in the case for the act done by the police peopfe. Lastly he submits that he aiso wrote a letter to the concsrned superintendent of police on 14.11.2( but the same has not been considered. After hear'ing counsel ror the po.rties and taking into considerotion the facts A circumstances of the cas®,this Court is of the visw that it is a fit case to rejease the appiicant on anticipatory bail. / Accordingiy the appiication is allowed. It is, ..^' therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of / the Gccused/applicant if he furnishes a personal / bond of Rs. 5Q,OOOA with one surety in the like ; sum to the.satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he be released on bail. The appiicant shali.make himseif available for interrogation by a poiice officer as csnd v/hen required and shail not directly, or indirectly make any inducement, threat or ^SSK r ^iS&^-S Ba ^^i iSS m -e ^^ • ^B^ ^§ M iB •a e^ ^^ aa 3Wt.«Al»& »»'^'r ,/s3|nj ^isd SD Xdoo pai^i+.js'? •|iDq JD|n6sj joj. Xjddo Xoui 4.UD3i|ddo/p3sn33D 3ij+ pousd sjij4. 6uung •/<opo4. IUQJ^ si(juou om4. ^o pousd D jo^ aM+as^.j.s urotusu ||DIJS jspjo sjqj^ •J33j^0 33jjod AUD Q+ JO +jno-^ 34+ 04. S+OD^ ijsns 6u!so|3sip luojj. 0131)4. aponssip o+ SD os ssos 3ij+ ^o S4.30J. si|+ tj+iM ps+uipnboD uosusd Auo o+ ssiuiojd r^