The court established that accurate documentation of a petitioner's criminal history is crucial for fair judicial proceedings, particularly in bail applications.

Headnote:
[CORRECTION] - [BAIL APPLICATION] - [The court addressed an inadvertent error in a previous order regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents, clarifying that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents of similar nature, thus rectifying the record to reflect the accurate legal standing of the petitioner.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to correct an error in a previous court order which inaccurately stated that he had no criminal antecedents, while he actually had another pending case under IPC Sections 323 and 341/34.
Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the error in the previous order and confirmed the existence of the pending case against the petitioner, necessitating a correction in the record.
Issues: Whether the previous order regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents was accurate and required correction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of accurate representation of a petitioner's criminal history in bail applications, which directly impacts the court's decision on bail.
Result: The application to correct the previous order was allowed, and the record was amended to accurately reflect the petitioner's criminal antecedents.

JUDGMENT

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that in the order dated 5.8.2021 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Bail Appl. No.11796/2021, inadvertently, it came to be recorded as if he has stated that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent; whereas, he has stated that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents of similar nature. As a matter of fact, another case under Sections 323 and 341/34 IPC is pending against him as is reflected in the order dated 15.7.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara, Alwar, dismissing his bail application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. The order dated 15.7.2021 specifically mentions pendency of another case against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 341/34 IPC and hence, it is apparent that in the order dated 5.8.2021, the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner as to absence of criminal antecedents came to be recorded erroneously and the same requires to be rectified.

4. In view thereof, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the order dated 5.8.2021, at page 1, it may be read the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents of similar nature instead of he has no criminal antecedents and also at page no.2 absence of criminal antecedents of similar nature be read instead of absence of criminal antecedents.

5. This order may be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 5.8.2021.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document