Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sah @ Sanjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court may modify its own bail order under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. to correct a clerical error and thereby uphold the original bail grant.
Summary
The appellants, Sanjay Kumar Sah and Bishu Sah, were granted regular bail by a Special Judge under the SC/ST Act in a case arising from a 2019 police report. The bail order dated 18-03-2026 contained a clerical error in paragraph 7, incorrectly stating that the bail would be released only if the appellants were arrested or surrendered within eight weeks. The appellants contended that this wording was contrary to the intended unconditional bail and sought correction. The court examined whether the erroneous clause affected the validity of the bail order and whether it could be rectified without prejudice. Relying on Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that the order could be modified to reflect the correct terms. Consequently, the bail order was amended to delete the erroneous condition, confirming the appellants' release on bail.
Issues considered
- Does a clerical error in a bail order that imposes an additional condition affect the validity of the bail granted?
- Can a court modify its own bail order under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to correct such an error?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- SC/ST Act
- order modification
- section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5182 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2019 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Sanjay Kumar Sah @ Sanjay Kumar S/O Bishu Sah R/O Village- Talimpur,
P.S- Madhuban, Dist.- East Champaran
2. Bishu Sah S/O Late Sudhu Sah R/O Village- Talimpur, P.S- Madhuban,
Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Most. Sunam Devi W/O Late Santosh Ram R/O Vill.- Banki Tikam, P.S-
Madhuban, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
Mr. Randhir Kumar No. 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Spl.
P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants were granted the privilege of regular bail by an order dated
18-3-2026, but inadvertently at para-7 it has been recorded that “The
appellants, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of eight weeks, are
directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5182 of 2025(4) dt.23-03-2026
2/2
No.SC/ST No.66 of 2020 arising out of Madhuban P. S. Case No.149
of 2019, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C.”, when it ought to be “The appellants, above-named, are
directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Trial
No.SC/ST No.66 of 2020 arising out of Madhuban P. S. Case No.149
of 2019.”
3. In view of the submission made by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, the para-7 of the order dated
18-3-2026 is modified to read as “The appellants, above-named, are
directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Trial
No.SC/ST No.66 of 2020 arising out of Madhuban P. S. Case No.149
of 2019.”
4. The order dated 18-3-2026 is modified to the extent
indicated above.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…