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