Can a signed judicial order granting bail be reversed simply because a court staffer typed “allowed” instead of “rejected”? The Supreme Court has answered in the negative, ruling that once an order is signed, it cannot be recalled or reviewed by the High Court to undo a mistake, even if that mistake fundamentally altered the intended outcome.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale restored the anticipatory bail of an accused in a narcotics case, holding that the Patna High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction when it recalled its own order due to a typographical error. The Apex Court emphasized the sanctity of a signed order under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which bars courts from altering judgments once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
The “One Word” Error
The legal anomaly originated from the Patna High Court in August 2025. The petitioner, Rambali Sahni, had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered in Bihar’s Vaishali district under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
On August 27, 2025, the High Court signed an order granting bail to Sahni. The court noted that no contraband was recovered from him and his name had surfaced only in the confessional statement of a co-accused.
However, in a bizarre turn of events, the same bench recalled the order three days later on August 30, 2025. The High Court explained that it had actually intended to dismiss the bail plea, but the personal assistant attached to the court had mistakenly typed the word “allowed” in the operative portion of the order instead of “rejected.”
The High Court recorded that the staffer had tendered an unconditional apology, citing a lapse in concentration caused by deep grief over the sudden death of his maternal uncle on the same day. Accepting the apology, the High Court modified its earlier decision, rejected the bail plea, and cancelled the bail bonds.
Supreme Court’s Observations: Sanctity of the Signed Order
Setting aside the High Court’s recall order, the Supreme Court held that the error, while unfortunate, did not empower the High Court to reverse a signed judgment.
Referring to Section 362 of the CrPC, the bench observed that the provision explicitly mandates that once a judgment or order is signed, no alteration or review is permissible unless it is to rectify a specific clerical or arithmetical error. The Court distinguished between correcting a typo (such as a date or name) and substantively changing the verdict from “Bail Granted” to “Bail Rejected.”
“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,” the bench held.
The Apex Court noted that what the High Court attempted was effectively a review of its own order, which is impermissible under criminal law. “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 stated.
Merits of the Case
Beyond the procedural technicality, the Supreme Court also touched upon the merits of the case. The prosecution had alleged that 6.33 kg of ganja was recovered from a co-accused, who claimed during interrogation that the contraband was meant for Sahni.
The Supreme Court noted that Sahni was implicated solely based on this co-accused’s statement and that no recovery was made directly from him. Stating that Sahni’s role would be examined during the trial, the Court found the original grounds for granting bail to be valid.
The appeal was allowed, and the order dated August 27, 2025, granting anticipatory bail was restored. The Court directed that Sahni be released on bail on terms fixed by the investigating officer.
