Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56677 (CHH)

AMIT DEWAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CRMP/3800/2025 · 2025-12-18

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:61844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3800 of 2025 Amit Dewan S/o Ramesh Gopal Dewan Aged About 48 Years R/o 2988, Galli Rai Bahadur, Shiv Sahai Mal, Ballimaran, Delhi G.P.O. North Delhi-110006 ...Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shilpi Shrivastava D/o Late Sh. K.K. Shrivastava Aged About 37 Years R/o Jorapara, Sarkanda, Bilapur (C.G.) (Objector) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Soni, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Ms. Jaspreet Gogiya appeared through video conferencing along with Ms. Nidhi Bhardwaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kuamr Soni, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. Jaspreet Gogiya appeared through video conferencing along with Ms. Nidhi Bhardwaj, counsel for the objector. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.19 16:08:20 +0530 2 Also heard Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has received a copy of the application for modification dated 09.12.2025 and has raised no objection thereto. He further submits that he has already filed his power in the main bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the objector submits that in the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by this Court in MCRCA No. 1877 of 2025, in paragraph No. 19 at page No. 20, name of the victim has wrongly been typed as “Shilpi Shrivastava” instead of “Anjula Shrivastava”, and in the same paragraph, line No. 6, the word “complainant” has wrongly been typed instead of “victim”, which requires to be corrected accordingly. 4. Learned State counsel has no objection with regard to the submissions made by the respective parties. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the objector, the present CRMP is allowed. It is directed that the name of the victim be read as “Anjula Shrivastava” in place of “Shilpi Shrivastava” and also the word “complainant” be read as “victim”. 6. A copy of this order be placed along with the record of MCRCA No. 1877 of 2025. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav