IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR — CxM we No (C G or 2011 / s B) “* W M@mgh :y C91 m P ) ) H APPLICANTS : Yavnesh Kumar Sahu S/o Bharosa Ram ' (Applicant No. 1 In Jail) Sahu, aged about 39 years, Occupa’uon Agriculturist; Bharosa Ram Sahu S/o Bilwaram Sahu, aged about 64 years, Occupation Agriculturist; Basan Bai Sahu W/o Bharosa Ram, aged about 56 years, Occupation Agriculturist; All R/o Nikum, P.S. Anda, District Durg (C.G.). Sabita Bai W/o Nil Kumar, aged about 25 years, Occupation Agriculturist; R/o Village Sibadi, P. S. Arjunda, District Durg (C.G.). (Applicant No.2 to 4 were on bail during pendency of the appeal) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through P. S. Arjunda, District Durg (c.G.)., an has Ia ‘otmwawkc // FOR RRECTION CLARIFICATION 1N THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2011, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTTSGARH 1N THE DECIDED CRIMTNAL APPEAL No. 202/2oo7f mm mw SB: Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Di ake 20 0'1 2011 Shn Malay Bhadun counsel or the apphcants Shrl Prawn Das Dy GA fort e respondent/State ~ Thig‘a‘ppligation has been iled for clarification in paragraph 14 of the judgment d‘atéd‘r33.1.2011 in which it has been mentioned that all the appellants were reported to be on bail wherea in fact the appellant No.1 was not on bail. 7 ‘2. Heard the parties and permed the judgment and the record. Appellant ’ No.1 namely Yavnesh Kumar Sahri appears to have been in jail and therefore paragraph 14 of the said judgment lleeds clarification in the following term: “Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned is set aside. Appellants 2 to 4 are already on bail and therefore their bail bonds stand discharged However, as appellant No.1 Yavnesh Kumar Sahu is in jail and herefore he is directed to be set free r ‘