v-l^:^^.^'7ssff^TW^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSdARH. BIUUSPUR Q-.M.P.Ho.aSl/aOOT PBTITIONER Sint. Vijay I^xini Ve.rma w/o Durga Prasad Vemia, aged about 35 years, R/o 54/7, Nehru N^ar(East) BUflai, District- Durg(CG) Versus NON-APPUCANT State of Chhattisgarb, Thi'ough: Statipn House Officer, P.S. Supela, TaIisU & DistriGt-Diu^(CG) Appearance: Shri H.S-Patel, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y^hwant Singh, GovenimeD.t Advocate for the Sfate. ORALORDER (03.08.3007) SUNIL KUMAR 8INHA, J. Heard. This petitioa has been ffled forcorrection pfcriine number iu orderdated 18.4.2007, passedm M.Cr.C,(A) No. 151/2007. Learaed counsel for the petitioner subinits that va fact, a wrong crime as 38/2006 was inentioned in fhe appUcatioa for anticipatory bail because it was inentioned like that ta the iiupugned order and the saine could not be discovered at fhe tune offinal hearing of the bail appUcation, tlierefore, the bail onlerwas passed, showingcrime No.38/2006, whereas, according to learue<|l counsel for the petitioner, ttte correct cnme nuiuber is 38/2007|. He piays for con'ectioa of fhe crinie nuinber, inentioned in order dated 18.4.3007. The con-CGtion prayed is aot opposed by learBed eauasel[ Isoj the IState. Hcmever, lie submi^fthat titis onierw^ ftl Cr. M.P.No.291/2007 :l4l.,i- Ih1 F]^ K. sunita period of 60 days •ITOIU 18.4.2007, therefore, aow it woiild be a futUe exercise, as it is not going to gwe any help to the petitioner. Be fhat as it uiay. For the tiinejieiag, we are not coacemed wifh the fate of the order, wc are only concemed wifh fhe coErection piayed for, aud if a wrong criine number 1las been inentioned in fhe order, it m.ust be corrected. Aceordiugly, fhe petition is aUowed. It is directed fhat fhe criine nnmber mentioned as 38/2006 iu. the 3rd Une ofimpugned order dated 18.4,2007, shallbe read as 38/2007 and to fhis effect, the order dated 18.4.2007 stahds inodified. The petitionstaB^ds finalty disposed of. Sun Sd/- ,. aKumarSinha Judge u—