Saved by typo? Supreme Court restores bail recalled by Patna HC over staffer’s ‘allowed vs rejected’ error

The Supreme Court recently restored bail to a man after noting that the Patna High Court had cancelled the relief due to a mistake by its own court staffer [Rambali Sahni v. State of Bihar].

The High Court staffer had mistakenly typed “allowed” instead of “rejected” in the bail order.

Based on this, the High Court had recalled its initial order granting bail to the accused.

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale observed that as per Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), once a judgment or order is signed, no alteration or review is permissible except for limited clerical or arithmetical corrections.

It added that the High Court was not correct in recalling the bail granted to the accused since the mistake made by the court staffer in this case did not amount to clerical error.

“In the instant case, there being no clerical or arithmetical error which had crept in, yet the High Court recalled the earlier order granting bail by the impugned order. It was not justified in undertaking to recall the order dated 27.08.2025 by the impugned order dated 30.08.2025. In other words, the order granting bail has been reversed or recalled, which is impermissible in law and would not be sustainable even for a moment. Hence, the same is set aside,” the Court said.

The Court was dealing with the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in a case registered in October 2024 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

According to the prosecution, the police intercepted a person riding a motorcycle and recovered 6.33 kg of ganja from him. During the inquiry, the person claimed that the contraband had been given to him by his father to be delivered to Rambali Sahni, the appellant in the case.

Based on this statement, Sahni was arraigned as an accused.

On August 27, 2025, the Patna High Court granted bail to Sahni. However, three days later, it recalled the bail order on the premise that the court master had mistakenly written “allowed” instead of “rejected” in the operative portion of the order.

The High Court went on to issue a show-cause notice to the court master, who then tendered an unconditional apology and stated that the error was inadvertent and occurred due to his deep grief following the sudden demise of his maternal uncle.

Accepting the explanation, the High Court recalled the bail order. Aggrieved by this, Sahni approached the Supreme Court.

The apex court set aside the recall order and held that the High Court’s action was impermissible in law and could not be sustained even for a moment.

The Court also examined the merits of the case and noted that Sahni was arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.

“The actual complicity of the appellant is an issue that will have to be examined during trial, and as such, the appellant would be entitled to be released on bail,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court restored the earlier bail order and directed that Sahni be released on anticipatory bail on terms to be fixed by the investigating officer.

Advocate Namit Saxena appeared for the accused.

Advocates Azmat Hayat Amanullah and Ekta Kundu appeared for the State of Bihar.

[Read Order]