HARISH KOHLI ALIAS BALAK RAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
BA1/924/2026 · 2026-08-14
Rakesh Thapliyal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10018 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10018 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010090922026 BA1/924/2026 Harish Kohli Alias Balak Ram --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat,
learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By the instant correction application, the applicant is seeking correction in the order dated 14.08.2026 passed by this Court. He submits that due to typographical error, he could not transcribe the proper section in bail application and consequently, in the order dated 14.08.2026, in place of “Section 64(1) of BNS 2023” “Section 61 (1) of BNS 2023 has been transcribed.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that correction is formal in nature and he has no objection to it.
5. Accordingly, the correction application is allowed.
5. Let in the order dated 14.08.2026, in place of “Section 61(1) of BNS 2023”, “Section 64(1) of BNS 2023” be substituted and this order be treated as part of the order dated 14.08.2026.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21-08-2026
Parul