Patna High Court
Md. Tahsib @ LaluversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The modification application is dismissed as the court cannot alter its earlier bail order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
Summary
The petitioners filed a modification application seeking alteration of a bail order dated 15‑04‑2026, which imposed conditions including verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The petitioner’s counsel argued that due to a communication gap the bail petition incorrectly stated that the petitioner had a clean record, whereas he actually has two prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the conditions of the original bail order and noted the statutory provision that a court may not alter a judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, citing Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 403 of the BNSS. Considering that the request involved substantive changes rather than a mere clerical correction, the court held that the modification could not be entertained. Consequently, the application for modification of the bail order was dismissed. The decision reaffirms the principle that courts cannot revisit or modify their final orders except as expressly permitted by law.
Issues considered
- Whether a court may modify a previously granted bail order on the ground of newly discovered criminal antecedents.
- Whether the statutory restriction under Section 362 Cr.P.C. (and Section 403 BNSS) precludes alteration of a judgment beyond clerical corrections.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 403
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 362
Subjects
- bail
- modification of order
- criminal antecedent
- Section 362 CrPC
- Section 403 BNSS
- alteration of judgment
- procedural law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44531 of 2026
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24227 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-557 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Md. Tahsib @ Lalu S/o Md. Nasim @ Md Sohrab Resident of Village-
Dauna, P.S.- Amarapur, District - Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The present modification application has been filed
for modifying the order dated 15.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 24227 of 2026 by which 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 dates without
sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court
below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or
the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44531 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/2
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in
case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed
his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.
3. 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 para-3 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has clean antecedents but in fact, the
petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present
one.
4. The Court also noticed Section 362 of Cr.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 view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the instant modification application is dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.