Judgment once signed can't be recalled except to correct clerical error: SC

The Supreme Court has said, once the judgment or order is signed, no alternation or review of it is permissible except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale set aside a Patna High Court's order, which had on August 27, 2025 granted to bail to an accused in a case related to recovery of ganja but on August 30, 2025 by the impugned order recalled it.

Such an order cannot be sustained even for a moment, the bench said, allowing an appeal by the appellant accused.

The High Court acted 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.

Examining the appeal, the bench said, "We deem it apposite to note Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [equivalent to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)] 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, the court noted as there was no clerical or arithmetical error which had crept in, yet the High Court recalled the earlier order, by impugned order and it was not justified in undertaking to recall the order of August 27, 2025 by the impugned order on August 30, 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," the bench said.

As per facts of the matter, an FIR was registered on October 23, 2024.

It is the case of the prosecution that on receipt of the secret information about one Dhawan Kumar would proceed towards Imadpur on his Honda motorcycle carrying Ganja, the said vehicle was intercepted by putting up the barricade.

The said vehicle was seized and 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 Rambali Sahni appellant herein. As such based on the statement of Dhawan Kumar, the appellant is arraigned as an accused.

On the merits of the case, the bench noticed that the appellant herein has been named as an accused on the basis of the co-accused's 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 bench said.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restored the order, granting bail to the appellant.

"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," the bench said.

Case Title: Rambali Sahni Vs State of Bihar

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale

Date of Judgment: January 7, 2026