1 2026:CGHC:22903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1404 of 2026 Avinash Awasthi S/o Shiv Kumar Awasthi Aged About 55 Years R/o Petamara, Police Station Tumla, Tahsil Farsabahar And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Of The Police Station Tumla, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Devendra Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present CRMP has been filed seeking certain modifications in the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by this Court in M,Cr.C(A) ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.15 17:51:58 +0530 2 No.691/2026. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the petitioner. 2. It is therefore prayed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in MCRCA/691/2026, titled "Avinash Awasthi v/s. State of Chhattisgarh" may kindly be modified to an above extend, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for modification/correction of the order passed by this court dated 07.05.2026 in MCRCA No.691 of 2026 {Avinash Awasthi v. State of Chhattisgarh}, whereby the anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner/ applicant was allowed, but due to inadvertent typographical error made by the concerned Stenographer in paragraph No. 03 of the order, it has been mentioned as under: “3….It is further submitted that the co-accused, including the Manager of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 in MCRC No. 2691/2026, and therefore the applicant is entitled to 3 the benefit of parity. It is also submitted that the anticipatory bail of the said co-accused was earlier rejected by this Hon’ble Court and thereafter and the matter was taken on record on 04.05.2026. Hence he deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.” 4. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was specifically submitted before this Hon'ble Court that, MCRCA of co-accused namely Bhuneshwar bearing MCRCA No. 268/2026 was rejected on 13.03.2026 and the said matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was registered as SLP (Criminal) No. 5924/2026 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 07.04.2026, has directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against him, and on 04.05.2026, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the said accused to join the investigation. During the course of hearing, the order of the SLP(Criminal) dated 07.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 were placed before the Hon'ble Court and marked as Flag A. The order of rejection of MCRCA No. 268/2026 was marked as Flag B and MCRC No. 2691/2026 was marked as Flag C and taking into consideration the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders passed in the matter of co- accused Jaiprakash Sahu and Shishupal Yadav, the benefit of anticipatory bail was extended to the present petitioner. 4 5. Likewise due to inadvertent typographical error made by the concerned Stenographer in paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 07.05.2026, there is no reference of the orders passed in the M.Cr.C.A. No. 268/2026 by which the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused Bhuneshwar Sai was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 but later on was granted relief by the Apex Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 5924/2026, on 07.04.2026 to the extent restraining the police from taking any coercive steps against the said co-accused, the order dated 04.05.2026 passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 5924/2026 by which the said co-accused was join to investigation and at Police Station, Tumla, District Jashpur, the order dated 28.04.2026 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No. 2691/2026 by which co-accused Jai Prakash Sahu has been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble Court, and M.Cr.C. No. 3936/2026, passed by this Court on 29.04.2026 by which the co- accused Shishupal Yadav has been granted regular bail. 6. Mr. Patel submits that the aforesaid typographical mistake is required to be corrected for giving full effect to the order passed by this Court on 07.05.2026 in M.Cr.C.A. No. 691/2026. Mr. Patel further submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law that clerical or arithmetical mistakes, or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in judicial orders, can always be corrected by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. If the said clerical error is not corrected, the petitioner/co- accused are likely to face unnecessary hardship and prejudice as 5 the order may be misconstrued to their detriment. 7. Mr. Patel lastly submits that the present petition has been filed to avoid any future conflict or inconsistency in interpretation, as similarly placed co-accused may approach this Hon’ble Court for grant of bail on the ground of parity. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to recall/modify the order dated 07.05.2026 to the limited extent of correcting the said inadvertent error. 8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has no objection if the limited correction/modification as prayed for by the petitioner, is allowed. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions and on careful examination of the order dated 07.05.2026, it is evident that the errors pointed out in paragraphs 3 and 6 are purely typographical/clerical in nature. 10. Hence, it is ordered that the following portion of the order dated 07.05.2026 in M.Cr.C.A No. 691/2026 at paragraph No. 3, i.e. “3….It is further submitted that the co-accused, including the Manager of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti, has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 in MCRC No. 2691/2026, and therefore the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is also submitted that the anticipatory bail of the said co-accused was earlier rejected by this Hon’ble Court and thereafter and the matter was taken on record on 04.05.2026. 6 Hence he deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.” stands deleted and in its place, the same be read as: “…..It is also submitted that anticipatory bail of the co- accused namely Bhuneshwar Sai, though was earlier rejected on 13.03.2026 by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C.A. No. 268/2026, and thereafter, the matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 5924/2026, passed an interim order on 07.04.2026 to the effect that no coercive steps shall be taken against him and thereafter, vide order dated 04.05.2026, the said co-accused was directed to join the investigation at Police Station, Tumla.” 11. Similarly, paragraph 6 of the order dated 07.05.2026 stands deleted and the same be read as under: “6. Considering the rival submissions, the nature of allegations, material available on record and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, it appears that the case of the applicant stands on similar footing as that of the co-accused, namely, Jai Prakash Sahu and Shishupal Yadav, who have been granted regular bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2691/2026 vide order dated 28.04.2026 and M.Cr.C.No. 3936/2026 vide order dated 29.04.2026, respectively, and further, one of the co-accused namely Bhuneshwar Sai whose anticipatory bail application though was rejected by this Court on 13.03.2026 in M.Cr.C.A No. 7 268/2026 but was later granted interim protection by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 5924/2026, vide order dated 07.04.2026 that no coercive steps shall be taken against him and thereafter, on 04.05.2026, the Hon’ble Apex Court has further directed the co-accused Bhuneshwar Sai to join the investigation at Police Station, Tumla. It is also noticed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and custodial interrogation is not required at this stage. In view of the principle of parity and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow the application.” 12. With the aforesaid modification, the present CRMP stands allowed. Rest of the contents of the order dated 07.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 691/2026 shall remain intact. 13. A copy of this order be placed alongwith the records of M.Cr.C.(A) No. 691/2026 to avoid any future ambiguity. 14. Let a copy of this order be supplied to all the concerned for information and compliance, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek/ Arpan