Gauhati High Court
IA(Crl)/86/2026 of Lipe Ete Vs The State of AP and Anr on 10 September 2026
GAHC040015282026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/86/2026 Lipe Ete Son of Late Marli Ete, a resident of Gumin Village, Aalo, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791001 VERSUS The State of
GAHC040015282026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(Crl)/86/2026
Lipe Ete
Son of Late Marli Ete, a resident of Gumin Village, Aalo, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791001
VERSUS
The State of AP and Anr
represented by the PP of AP 2:Smti Ide Ete Age: 0
Occupation :
a resident of ESS Sector
Itanagar
PO and PS Itanagar
Papum Pare District
Arunachal Pradesh. 79111
Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
ORDER
Date : 11.09.2026
Heard Mr. K. Danggen, learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner. Also heard Ms L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Page 1 of 2
2. By filing this interlocutory application, the applicant/petitioner seeks correction of certain clerical errors occurred in the connected Crl.Petn No.251(AP)/2026. The proposed correction is for the errors occurred in the paragraphs-2 and 12 of the petition and paragraphs-1 and 2 of the prayer portions where the date of the FIR has been wrongly mentioned as 23.03.2022 whereas the correct date of FIR is 23.02.2022.
3. Another correction sought for is in the paragraph-6, where the date of charge sheet has been wrongly mentioned as 23.02.2022 and 23.02.2021, whereas the correct date of the charge sheet is 18.10.2022.
4. Yet another correction sought for is at paragraph-6, where the annexures have been wrongly marked as Annexure-5, 6 and 7 of the petition, whereas, as per serially arranged, the annexure is Annexure-4, 5 and 6.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforementioned inadvertent error was unintentional and clerical errors. And since the above corrections would not cause any material change in the connected petition and would not cause any prejudice to the respondents, therefore, the prayer for correction may be allowed.
6. Ms L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State raised no objection to the prayer made by the applicant and accordingly, the prayer for correction is allowed.
7. The applicant/petitioner is directed to amend the petition within a week from today.
8. With the above, the interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by TAGE BUNYI Date: 2026.09.11 18:49:01 +05'30'
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…