New Delhi: The Supreme Court has restored anticipatory bail to a man accused in a narcotics case, ruling that the Patna High Court acted beyond its powers by recalling bail that had already been granted, solely due to a typographical error in the order.

The case arose after a court staffer mistakenly typed the word “allowed” instead of “rejected” in the operative portion of the bail order, setting off an unusual chain of events that reached the apex court.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale held that once a judicial order is signed, it cannot be altered or reviewed except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, as expressly barred under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). “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 noted.

Background of the Case

The matter stems from a first information report (FIR) registered in Vaishali district, Bihar, in October 2024, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution alleged that 6.33 kg of ganja was intercepted and claimed to be intended for the petitioner, Rambali Sahni, as per statements given by co-accused persons.

On August 27, 2025, the Patna High Court granted Sahni anticipatory bail, noting that no contraband was recovered from him and that his name surfaced only in the statement of a co-accused. However, three days later, the same bench recalled the bail order, claiming that the court had intended to reject the bail and that “allowed” had been mistakenly typed by the personal assistant.

The recall order, dated August 30, mentioned that the personal assistant had tendered an unconditional apology, explaining that the error occurred while he was in deep grief following the sudden demise of his maternal uncle. Accepting the explanation, the high court modified the order to reject the bail plea and directed the cancellation of the bail bond.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The apex court held that the high court had no jurisdiction to reverse or recall a signed bail order, and that a staff error could not deprive an accused of liberty. Citing Section 362 of the CrPC, the bench clarified that minor clerical or arithmetic mistakes can be corrected, but substantive alterations are impermissible.

On the merits, the bench noted that Sahni had been implicated solely based on the statement of co-accused, and his alleged role would require examination during trial.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the August 27 bail order and directing that Sahni be released on anticipatory bail under terms to be fixed by the investigating officer. The apex court also stayed the effect of the high court’s recall order, concluding this unusual procedural episode.