Rahul Kumar @ Doma @ Rahul Choudhary vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

The present petition has been filed seeking modification in the judgment and order dated 02.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36640 of 2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court had allowed the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner by the aforesaid judgment and

order; however, among the conditions it was also stipulated that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and has only a mother and a wife in the family and both of them do not have any

landed property. Thus, it was submitted that they are not in a position to stand as bailor for release of the petitioner. It was submitted that in the

supplementary affidavit filed on his behalf, it has been stated that the aunt (phua) of the wife of the petitioner, who has sufficient sureties to furnish the

bail bonds of the petitioner, is ready to do so and, thus, the Court may allow her to stand as one of the bailors in satisfaction of the condition of having

a close relative as one of the bailors.

Learned APP submitted that the Court may consider the plea.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the prayer made

is bona fide and it does not violate the spirit of the order as the person who is ready to furnish bail bonds is closely related to the wife of the petitioner.

Accordingly, in the judgment and order dated 02.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36640 of 2020, the condition with regard to one of the bailors

being a close relative of the petitioner stands modified and substituted by Aruna Devi, the aunt (phua) of the wife of the petitioner.

The Court is conscious of the fact that due to such problem being faced by the petitioner, the time allowed for him to surrender before the Court

below has now elapsed. Thus, in the interest of justice, the same is also extended by a further period of six weeks from today.

As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, due to typographical error in the main petition of Cr. Misc. No. 36640 of 2020, in the address

of the petitioner, the name of the police station had wrongly been typed as “Katihar†though it should be “Korhaâ€. It was submitted that in the

present petition, the correct name of the police station has been typed and the Court may modify the judgment and order dated 02.07.2021 passed in

Cr. Misc. No. 36640 of 2020 further with regard to the correction in the cause title in the address of the petitioner where instead of “PS Katiharâ€

it be read as “PS Korhaâ€​. Prayer of the petitioner is allowed.

Accordingly, in the judgment and order dated 02.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36640 of 2020 as well as the main petition of the said Criminal

Miscellaneous, in the address of the petitioner, instead of “PS Katiharâ€​, the same be corrected as “PS Korhaâ€​.

The rest of the judgment and order dated 02.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36640 of 2020 shall remain unchanged.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.