Raju Ray vs The State Of Assam on 22 January, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Raju Ray vs The State Of Assam on 22 January, 2020

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                      Page No. 1/3

GAHC010011212020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : I.A.(Crl.) 37/2020

            1:RAJU RAY
            S/O SRI JOGENDRA RAY, R/O VILL. MAHANTA MANIHARI, P.S. MANIHARI,
            DIST. MUZAFFARPUR, STATE BIHAR, PIN 843146

            VERSUS

            1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : G UDDIN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

             Linked Case : AB 181/2020

            1:RAJU RAY
             S/O SRI JOGENDRA RAY
             R/O VILL-MAHANT MANIHARI
             P.S.-MANIHARI
             DIST-MUZAFFARPUR
             STATE-BIHAR
             PIN-843146

             VERSUS

             1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             ASSAM

             Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN
             Advocate for the Respondent : PP
             ASSAM
                                                                                     Page No. 2/3

                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                           ORDER

Date : 22-01-2020 Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

The petitioner has approached this Court by AB 181/2020, seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 417/2019, registered under Section 495/498(A), I.P.C.

On 10.01.2020, when the said application, AB 181/2020 was moved, the petitioner has been granted interim protection with the further direction to him to appear before the investigating officer within 10 (ten) days from 10.01.2020. However, the concerned police station case number in the order dated 10.01.2020 has been mentioned as "Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 1314/2019 under Sections 95/498(A), I.P.C.", instead of "Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 417/2019 under Section 495/498(A), I.P.C." inadvertently.

I have considered the averments made in this application and also perused the application in AB 181/2020, wherefrom, it clearly transpires that the concerned police station case number has been inadvertently mentioned as "Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 1314/2019 under Sections 95/498(A), I.P.C.", instead of "Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 417/2019 under Section 495/498(A), I.P.C." in the order dated 10.01.2020 and the same is an inadvertent typographical error.

In view of the same, it is ordered that in the order dated 10.01.2020 passed in AB 181/2020 the concerned police station case number shall be read as "Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 417/2019 under Section 495/498(A), I.P.C.", instead of "Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 1314/2019 under Sections 95/498(A), I.P.C."

It is submitted by Mr. G. Uddin that in view of the inadvertent typographical error crept in the order dated 10.01.2020, the petitioner could not appear before the investigating officer within 10 (ten) days from 10.01.2020. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be granted 10 (ten) days' time from today to appear before the Investigating Officer.

Page No. 3/3

In view of the aforesaid facts, I deem it proper to allow the petitioner further 10 (ten) days' time from today to appear before the Investigating Officer.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this I.A. stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gauhati High Court