Orders Cannot Be Altered U/s. 362 CrPC To Correct Substantive Errors: Supreme Court Reinstates Bail In NDPS Matter
The Court said that the order granting bail was reversed, which is impermissible in law and as the same would not be sustainable even for a moment.
The Supreme Court has held that once the judgment or order is signed, no alteration or review of the same is permissible except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
The Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “At this juncture, 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. In other words, 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.”
AOR Namit Saxena appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah appeared for the Respondent.
Facts of the case
The prosecution’s case alleges that, acting on a confidential tip, officers established a barricade to intercept a Honda motorcycle operated by Dhawan Kumar near Imadpur. Upon stopping the vehicle, Kumar was apprehended, and a search of his person yielded 6.330 kg of Ganja.
During the subsequent inquiry, Kumar reportedly claimed that his father had provided the narcotics for delivery to the Appellant. Based solely on this custodial statement, the Appellant was arraigned as a co-accused in the matter.
Observation
The Court noted that initially, the jurisdictional High Court had granted bail to the Appellant herein. However, by the impugned order, the same was reversed or recalled on the premise that the Court Master, though he had recorded as petition having been rejected in the operative portion, had mistakenly written as “allowed”.
The High Court had noted in the impugned order that the Personal Assistant when visited with a show-cause notice had tendered unqualified apology and had stated that it was an inadvertent error which was on account of said employee being in deep grief due to the sudden demise of his maternal uncle and as such accepting the said unconditional apology tendered by the Court Master, the order of granting the bail came to be reversed or recalled.
“Turning our attention to the merits of the case, we notice at the cost of the repetition that appellant herein has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of the co-accused statement. As to the actual complicity of the appellant is an issue which will have to be thrashed out after trial and as such the appellant would be entitled for being released on bail.”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Rambali Singh v. State of Bihar [SLP(Crl.) 72999/2025]
Appearances:
Appellant: AOR Namit Saxena
Respondent: AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah and Advocate Ekta Kundu