JAYA SINGH DEO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instant interlocutory application has been filed for ignoring the defect Nos.9 (iv), (v) pointed out by the stamp reporter.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court towards para-3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 11.12.2019 submits that in para-16 of the anticipatory bail application, it has been inadvertently mentioned that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 07.11.2019 but as a matter of fact the same is wrong. The anticipatory bail application was allowed but some onerous conditions have been imposed which was to be complied with within prescribed period, even though the petitioners were never ready and willing to fulfill such conditions and further observation made that if order is not complied then anticipatory bail will be cancelled. Under such circumstances present application has been filed. It is then submitted that in view of the averments made in para-3 of the said supplementary affidavit, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial Nos.9 (iv), (v) consequent upon averment being made by the petitioner in para-16 of the anticipatory bail application that this anticipatory bail application has been filed upon the prayer of bail of the petitioner being rejected by the session judge, that the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi is not the rejection order, be ignored. It is then submitted that the petitioners have clarified that this petition has not been filed in respect of rejection rather they have preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before this Court as the conditions imposed in the order of anticipatory bail are onerous. Hence, it is submitted that the defect pointed out at serial Nos.9 (iv), (v) by the stamp reporter be ignored.

(3.) Considering the aforesaid facts, the defects pointed out at serial Nos.9 (iv), (v) by the stamp reporter is ignored.