1 2026:CGHC:15795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 991 of 2026  Alok Shastri S/o Late Baijnath Shastri Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Baima, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Correct Name Of Father Of Appellant No. 4 Alok Shastri, S/o Ashok Shastri, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Baima, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Appellant No. 4) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Ashok Shahtri S/o Late Baijnath Shastri Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Baima, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Appellant No. 1) 3. Prafulla Shastri S/o Late Baijnath Shastri Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Baima, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Appellant No. 2) 4. Ashwani Shastri S/o Late Baijnath Shastri Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Baima, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Appellant No. 3) ---Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Agrawal Advocate & Md. Ruhul Ameen, Advocate For-Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 07/04/2026 1. The present CRMP has been 1led seeking modi1cation of the order dated 18.03.2026 passed in CRA No. 1639 of 2017. 2. The CRMP has been 1led seeking modi1cation of the judgment to the extent that the name of the father of the appellant No. 4 has been wrongly typed in the said order. Accordingly the said error occurred on the part of the appellant himself who had wrongly re8ected at in the original Criminal Appeal. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the criminal appeal, the name of the father of Appellant No. 4 is “Ashok Shastri”, whereas it has been wrongly typed as “Late Baijnath Shastri”. 4. The error on the part of the learned counsel for appellant seems to be due to some typographical error on the part of his o;ce, the same is not opposed by the State counsel so far as the recti1cation is concerned. 5. It is also evident from the trial Court judgment that the name of the father of Appellant No. 4 has been correctly recorded as “Ashok Shastri”. 6. Accordingly, the present CRMP is allowed. The order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1639 of 2017 stands modi1ed to the limited extent that the name of the father of Appellant No. 4 shall be read as “Ashok Shastri” in place of “Late Baijnath Shastri”. 7. With the aforesaid modi1cation, the present CRMP stands allowed and disposed o%. Let a copy of the order passed in the present CRMP be made part of the record of the Criminal Appeal No. 1639 of 2017 decided on 18.03.2026. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti