What began as a typographical slip in a bail order eventually landed before the Supreme Court, which has now ruled that courts cannot undo a signed order — no matter how awkward the mistake.
In an unusual turn of events, the Supreme Court has restored bail to a man accused in a narcotics case after holding that the Patna High Court had acted beyond its powers in recalling bail that had already been granted, solely because a court staffer mistakenly typed the word “allowed” instead of “rejected” in the operative portion of the order.
A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale said that once a judicial order is signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, as expressly barred under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court underlined that the high court’s attempt to undo the grant of bail on the basis of a staff error was impermissible in law.
“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,” held the bench in an order earlier this month.
{{/usCountry}}“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,” held the bench in an order earlier this month.
{{/usCountry}}The case arose from a first information report (FIR) registered in Bihar’s Vaishali district in October 2024, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution alleged that a person was intercepted with 6.33 kg of ganja and claimed during interrogation that the contraband was meant to be delivered to the petitioner, Rambali Sahni.
On August 27, 2025, the Patna High Court granted Sahni anticipatory bail, noting that no recovery had been made from him and that his name surfaced only in the confessional statement of the co-accused. However, three days later, the same bench recalled the bail order, stating that the court had actually intended to reject the bail plea and that the word “allowed” had been mistakenly typed in the operative portion by the court’s personal assistant.
In the recall order dated August 30, the high court further recorded that the personal assistant had tendered an unconditional apology, explaining that the error occurred as he was in deep grief following the sudden demise of his maternal uncle on the same day. Accepting the explanation, the high court modified the earlier order to reject the bail plea and directed cancellation of the bail bond.
Advocate Namit Saxena appeared for Sahni in the top court.
Setting aside the recall order, the Supreme Court held that the high court had no jurisdiction to reverse or recall a bail order once it had been signed. “There being no clerical or arithmetical error which had crept in, yet the High Court recalled the earlier order granting bail… the same would not be sustainable even for a moment,” the bench noted.
Citing Section 362 of the CrPC, the court emphasised that while minor clerical or arithmetic mistakes can be corrected, substantive alteration of a judicial order is barred. The court stressed that the mistake attributed to the staff could not be used as a ground to deprive an accused of liberty once bail had been granted.
On the merits of the case, the bench also noted that Sahni had been implicated only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and that his alleged role would have to be examined during trial.
Allowing the appeal, the apex court restored the August 27 bail order and directed that Sahni be released on anticipatory bail on terms to be fixed by the investigating officer. It also stayed the effect of the high court’s recall order, bringing the peculiar procedural episode to a close.