1. Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned“ at the   instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.                                                                                                                                                                                 . 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some typographical error  has been crept in paragraph No.6.2 of the order dated 24.11.2025. The said   paragraph No.6.2 is to be replaced as follows:                                          “6.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of respondent police submitted that after the   filing of aforesaid petition by the petitioner / accused No.1, the respondent police has locally inspected the scene of crime and found that the no Poultry Farm is not in existence at present. The  petitioner / accused No.1 claims that there was no poultry farm   near the place of occurrence, but, now, the said place remains to be   a vacant place. Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct a local   inspection at the scene of crime at this point of time.”    3. Registry is directed to incorporate the paragraph No.6.2. quoted above   and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith.    4. In all other respects, the order dated 24.11.2025 shall remain unaltered.