Patna High Court
Nanhak Sahni @ Raj Kumar sahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The modification petition is dismissed; the original bail order stands.
Summary
The petitioner, Nanhak Sahni, was granted bail on 14‑05‑2025 with conditions including cooperation in trial and verification of his criminal antecedents. He later filed a modification application alleging that the bail order incorrectly stated he had three criminal antecedents when, in fact, he had four. The petitioner argued that this factual discrepancy warranted a modification of the bail order. The court examined Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 403 of the BNSS, which prohibit a court from altering a judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Finding that the alleged error did not qualify as a mere clerical mistake, the court dismissed the modification petition, leaving the original bail order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether a bail order can be modified to correct a factual error regarding the number of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
- Whether Section 362 CrPC/Section 403 BNSS bars alteration of a judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 403
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 362
Subjects
- bail
- modification of bail order
- criminal antecedents
- Section 362 CrPC
- clerical error
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28638 of 2026
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30558 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2024 Thana- Pahelja P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
Nanhak Sahni @ Raj Kumar sahani son of Ram Dayal Sahani Resident of
Khaika Police Station -Sonepur, Dist- Saran At Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned APP for
the State.
2. The present modification application has been filed
for modify the order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
30558 of 2025.
3. By the order dated 14.05.2025, the petitioner was
granted bail with the following conditions :-
“(i) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial
and shall be properly represented on each
and every date fixed by the Court and shall
remain physically present as directed by the
Court and on his absence on two consecutive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28638 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond
shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(ii). If the petitioner tamper with the evidence
or the witness, in that case, the prosecution
will be at liberty to move for cancellation of
bail.
(iii) And further condition that the court
below shall verify the criminal antecedent of
the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is
found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedents, the court below shall
take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the
name of verification”.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
due to communication gap on the basis of the information
furnished by the Pairvikar, it was stated in paragraph-3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents
but in fact the petitioner carries four criminal antecedents.
The Court also noticed Section 362 of Cr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28638 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
P.C./Section 403 of BNSS, which reads as follows :-
“362/403- Court not to alter judgment. Save
as otherwise provided by this Code/Sanhita
or by any other law for the time being in
force, no Court, when it has signed its
judgment or final order disposing of a case,
shall alter or review the same except to
correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant
modification petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U
Checking your session…