The Supreme Court has reinstated anticipatory bail in a case filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that the Patna High Court had acted wholly without jurisdiction in recalling a signed bail order on the ground of an alleged typographical lapse by court staff.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale ruled that the recall of bail, purportedly occasioned by the inadvertent use of the word ‘allowed’ instead of ‘rejected’ in the operative portion of the order, amounted to an impermissible substantive review barred by Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provision placed an absolute embargo on altering or reviewing a judgment or final order once signed, save for the correction of purely clerical or arithmetical errors, it added.
The controversy stemmed from an FIR registered in October 2024 at Vaishali district, Bihar, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution case was that 6.33 kg of ganja had been seized from a co-accused, who allegedly disclosed during custodial interrogation that the contraband was intended for delivery to the appellant, Rambali Sahni. No recovery was effected from Sahni, nor was he apprehended at the scene.
On August 27, 2025, the Patna High Court granted Sahni anticipatory bail, taking note of the absence of direct recovery, the lack of independent corroborative material, and the fact that his implication rested solely on the statement of a co-accused, which by itself carries limited evidentiary value. However, within three days, the same Bench recalled the order, recording that it had never intended to allow the bail application and that the operative portion reflected a mistake committed by the court’s personal assistant. The recall order also adverted to an unconditional apology tendered by the staff member, attributing the error to personal distress following a bereavement, and proceeded to cancel the bail bond.
The Supreme Court held that such an exercise was ex facie ultra vires. It underscored that Section 362 CrPC drew a clear and categorical distinction between rectifiable clerical or arithmetical slips and prohibited substantive alterations affecting the rights and liberties of parties. Once a judicial order was pronounced and signed, it attained finality and could not be revisited under the guise of correcting an error of intention.
Relying on settled precedent, including the principles enunciated in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, the Bench reaffirmed that courts lack inherent power to recall or modify criminal orders in a manner that results in a review on merits.
It further observed that the explanation furnished by court staff, however bona fide, could not furnish a lawful basis to deprive an accused of personal liberty once bail had been judicially granted.
On the substantive aspects of the prosecution, the Apex Court noted that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would require strict scrutiny at trial, particularly where the accused was not named in the recovery memo and was implicated only through a co-accused’s disclosure statement.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s recall order dated August 30, 2025, restored the anticipatory bail granted on August 27, 2025, and directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to conditions to be stipulated by the investigating officer in accordance with law.
The Bench stayed the recall order, terming it a procedurally untenable departure from established criminal jurisprudence.
The post Supreme Court reinstates anticipatory bail in NDPS case, stays Patna High Court recall order appeared first on India Legal.