-1- S.B.CR.MISC.PETITION NO.983/2007 IN S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.2696/2007 (Dharma & anr. vs. State of Rajasthan) 4/7/2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.Bharat Shrimali, for the petitioners. Mr.V.R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been moved by the petitioners for correction in the name of father of petitioner No.1 Dharma as “Bhalji” in place of “Balji”, which has crept in the order of this Court dated 26.6.2007. Learned counsel submits that the order of this court dt.26.6.2007 was placed before the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur but he refused to verify the bail bonds on account of change of father's name from “Bhalji” to “Balji”, as such, necessary correction may be made so that the accused may be released. I have gone through the order of this Court dated 26.6.2007 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.2696/2007 alongwith the application moved by petitioner Dharma and the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur passed in -2- Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.194/2007 on 12.6.2007. From a bare perusal of the order dated 12.6.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.194/2007, it appears that whether father's name of petitioner Dharma is “Bhalji” or “Balji” is not legible in the certified photostat copy of the order itself, annexed with the bail application before this court, because the word “bha” or “ba” typed in Hindi is a carbon work. Even the learned Sessions Judge himself has not made any attempt to correct it by putting his initial and consequently, if the learned counsel for the petitioner has written “Balji”, it cannot be said to be a mistake on his part and this court has passed the order dated 26.6.2007 by keeping in view the application of the petitioner and the order of the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that on this technical reason, the detention of the accused petitioner cannot be termed as a sound vision to make compliance of the order of this court. When other particulars like petitioner's name, F.I.R.No. & so on, are similar, then not releasing the petitioner despite the order of this Court amounts to illegal detention on technical ground, which was not expected from a Sessions Judge. Let the explanation of the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur be called-for as to why appropriate action should not be taken -3- against him for non-compliance of the order of this court. He is directed to enlarge the petitioner Dharma on bail in F.I.R.No.79/2007, Police Station Chitri, District Dungarpur, immediately irrespective of the fact whether his father's name is “Bhalji” or “Balji”. The explanation should reach to this Court within a period of 15 days from today. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS