Supreme Court: It is impermissible to recall the judgment or order once it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error.

 The High Court also 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.

6. 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.

Ratio: 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.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.105 OF 2026

RAMBALI SAHNI  Vs  STATE OF BIHAR 

Dated: JANUARY 07, 2026.

1. Heard.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. FIR No.287/2024 was registered on 23.10.2024.

It is the case of the prosecution that on receipt

of the secret information, Mr. Dhawan Kumar would

proceed towards Imadpur on his Honda motorcycle

carrying Ganja, the said vehicle was intercepted

by putting up the barricade and the said vehicle

was seized and Mr. Dhawan Kumar was apprehended

and from his conscious possession, 6.330 kg of

Ganja was seized. On inquiry, he had stated that

his father had given it to him for being delivered

to the appellant herein. As such based on the

statement of Mr. Dhawan Kumar, the appellant is

arraigned as an accused.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the parties, we notice that initially the

jurisdictional High Court had granted bail on

27.08.2025 (Annexure-P/3) to appellant herein.

However, by the impugned order, the same was

reversed or recalled on the premise that Court

Master though had recorded as petition having been

rejected in the operative portion had mistakenly

written as “allowed”. The High Court also 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside

the impugned order and though we restore the order

dated 27.08.2025 passed by the High Court, we make

it clear that the appellant shall be released on

anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional

Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions

as he deems fit.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

.................J.

(ARAVIND KUMAR)

.................J.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 07, 2026.

Print Page