Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010257922025 2025:GAU-AS:16177 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1259/2025 BIDYUT MAJUMDAR S/O SHRI BARUM MAJUMDAR, RESIDENT OFHOUSE NO. 20, SURAJ PATH, JANAKPUR, KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781019 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI ALANKRITA PATHAK W/O SHRI BIDYUT MAJUMDAR RESIDENT OFHOUSE NO. 20 SURAJ PATH JANAKPUR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P TALUKDAR, MR W R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : AB/2696/2025 BIDYUT MAJUMDAR AND ANR S/O SHRI BARUN MAJUMDAR R/O H/NO.20 SURAJ PATH JANAKPUR Page No.# 2/3 KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM P.S. DISPUR PIN-781019. 2: SMTI. ALANKRITA PATHAK S/O SHRI BARUN MAJUMDAR R/O H/NO. 20 SURAJ PATH JANAKPUR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM P.S. DISPUR PIN-781019. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR W R MEDHI Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 27/11/2025 Heard Mr. W R Medhi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking to make necessary Page No.# 3/3 corrections in the cause title of the anticipatory bail application as well as in the Annexure-A, annexed to this application, which is the translated and typed copy of the FIR. 3. It is submitted that inadvertently, the third line of the accused petitioner No. 2, has been wrongly incorporated as “S/O. Shri Barun Mazumdar” instead of “W/o. Shri Bidyut Majumdar”. It is also submitted that in Annexure-A, i.e., the translated and typed copy of the FIR, in the 6th line, the words have been wrongly typed as “November, 1st, last year”, which should be “November, 1st, this year”. Further, the words “the principal of the institute about this, he hurled”, has been wrongly typed, which should be “the principal of the institute about this, she hurled”. 4. The corrections are appeared to be typographical errors and are accordingly allowed to be corrected. 5. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant