Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

Shaurya Sunil Kumar SinghversusCentral Bureau of Investigation Economic Offences Wing

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court ordered that the term "regular bail" be corrected to "default bail" in the order.

Summary

The applicant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, filed a criminal revision seeking correction of a bail order issued on 6 February 2026. The High Court had granted bail but erroneously described it as "regular bail" instead of the correct term "default bail". The applicant contended that the mistake needed rectification to reflect the nature of the bail granted. The Court examined whether such a clerical error warranted a correction in the order. Finding that the terminology was indeed incorrect, the Court directed that the order be amended to state "default bail". The precipe was thereafter disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the bail order should be corrected from "regular bail" to "default bail"
  • Whether a clerical error in a bail order justifies judicial correction

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal revision
  • order correction
  • default bail
  • regular bail

Judgment

                                                                                           502-P1-BA-475-2025.doc



                              N.S.Kamble


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2025

                              Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh                                 … Applicant
                                       Versus
                              Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences … Respondent
                              Wing, Mumbai
           Digitally signed
NILAM   by NILAM
        SANTOSH               ________________________________________________________
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.02.16
        12:41:26 +0530

                              Mr.Ritesh Karl a/w Ms.Uroosa Shaikh i/b Vanguard Law Group, for
                              the Applicant.
                              Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
                              ________________________________________________________
                                                               CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                               DATE            : 12th FEBRUARY 2026

                              P.C. :

                              .            Not on board. Taken on board.
                              2.           This preceipe is moved for speaking to the minutes of order
                              dated 6th February 2026, this Court has granted bail to the Applicant.
                              In the first paragraph of the order ‘The Applicant is seeking regular bail’
                              is wrongly mentioned, it should be ‘The Applicant is seeking default
                              bail’.
                              3.           Correction be made accordingly.
                              4.           Preacipe is disposed of.



                                                                               (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

                                                                 Page 1 of 1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.