Staff Records Bail 'Rejected' As 'Allowed' : Supreme Court Says Not 'Clerical Error' To Recall Signed Order

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order recalling its earlier order, which had granted bail to the accused, noting that it is impermissible to recall the judgment or order once it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale came across a case where the High Court reversed/recalled the order granting bail on the premise that the Court Master, though he had recorded as a petition having been rejected in the operative portion, had mistakenly written as “allowed”.

The Court Master, when served with the show cause notice, responded that it was an inadvertent error which was on account of being in deep grief due to the sudden demise of his maternal uncle.

The case arose from an FIR registered on October 23, 2024, alleging seizure of 6.330 kg of ganja from one Dhawan Kumar, who was intercepted by the police while riding a motorcycle. During inquiry, the co-accused stated that the contraband had been handed over by his father for delivery to the appellant, Rambali Sahni (the appellant). On the basis of this statement, the appellant was arraigned as an accused.

The Patna High Court had initially granted bail to the appellant on August 27, 2025. However, by a subsequent order dated August 30, 2025, the High Court recalled the bail on the ground that the Court Master had mistakenly recorded the operative portion as “allowed” instead of “rejected”. The High Court accepted an unconditional apology tendered by the Court Master and recalled the bail order.

Disagreeing with the High Court's approach, the Court observed:

“we deem it apposite to note Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which clearly mandates that once the judgment or order is signed, no alternation or review of the same is permissible except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. In the instant case, there being no clerical or arithmetical error which had crept in, yet the High Court recalled the earlier order granted bail by impugned order and it was not justified in undertaking to recall the order dated 27.08.2025 by the impugned order 30.08.2025…the order granting bail has been reversed or recalled by the impugned order which is impermissible in law and as same would not be sustainable even for a moment. Hence, same is set aside.”

On merits, the Court noted that the appellant was implicated only on the basis of a statement of the co-accused.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Appellant was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.

Cause Title: RAMBALI SAHNI VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 61
Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv.