K.K.Chaubey, J. - (1.) This application purporting to be under Sections 437 and 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India has been moved for recalling the order dated 14-2-1991, of this Court by which the order dated 28-7-1990 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8202 of 1990 (Ahsan v. State of U.P.) was corrected.
(2.) Ahsan applied for bail in Crime No. 142 of 1989 under Sections 394/302/34, I.P.C. of Police Station Kandhla, District Muzaffarnagar. It was said that on 28-7-1989 at 10.30 A. M. Man Mohan was counting money at his shop in Grain Mandi of Kandhla town. At that very time, Ahsan, applicant accompanied with one more person, both armed with country made pistol came to the shop. The companion was standing there with country made pistol for watching. The applicant, Ahsan at the point of his country made pistol wanted to snatch money but Man Mohan resisted at which Ahsan fired at him. After robbing money from Man Mohan the applicant and his companion ran away.
(3.) The bail application came up for hearing before the Court on 28-7-1990. After hearing both the parties, the bail application was disposed of. A bare reading of the order would make it clear that the bail application had been rejected but due to inadvertance of the writer of the order, it was transcribed as under : "Hon'ble Kamlakar Chaube, J. Sun liya gaya. Din ki is ghatna me beech hazar me prarthi dwara mritak par goli chalana kaha gaya hai Patrawali par sam uplabdh sabhi abhilekhon ko dekhne ke uprant ye prarthna patra swikrit kiya jata hai. Prarthi Ahsan Apradh Sankhya 142, 1989 antargat Dhara 394/302/ 34, I.P.C., Thana Kandhla Zila Muzaffarnagar ko panch hazar rupye ke ek niji panchpatra aur 2 pratibhu praiyek ukt aharnashi ke dakhil karne par Mukhya Nyayik Dandaadhikari, Muzaffarnagar ki santushti par zamanat par chhor diya jaye. 28-7-1990 The words "Din ki is ghatna me beech bazar me prarthi dwara mritak par goli chalana kaha gaya hai" clearly go to indicate that the bail application was ordered to be rejected in view of the robbery having taken place in broad day light in a busy market but due to inadvertence or clerical error the judgment writer who wrote the order on the dictation of the Court noted the word 'Svikriti' instead of 'Asvikriti' in the first paragraph of the order.;