Why Supreme Court's judgement did not treat a clerical error by Court Master of Patna High Court as clerical error recognized by the High Court in a NDPS bail case?

In Rambali Sahni vs. State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 6-page long order dated January 7, 2026 wherein it allowed the appeal of the accused and restored the bail order citing bar to recall final orders and judgments under Section 362 CrPC in a case from Bhagwanpur, Vaishali. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court had actually dismissed bail plea of an NDPS accused but the Court Master had mistakenly recorded it as allowed. High Court recalled the order granting bail citing this clerical mistake. But we wonder- why is it not treated as a clerical error?

The criminal appeal arose out of 2=page long impugned final order dated August 30, 2025 passed by Justice Pandey of the High Court. His order reads:"2. The present bail petition was rejected vide order dated 27.08.2025. On the same day, the progress was recorded by the Court Master showing it to be rejected, but in the operative portion, i.e., paragraph no. 6, instead of recording the rejection order, it was mistakenly written as "allowed" due to an error by the Personal Assistant, Ajay Kumar Mishra. 3. A show cause was issued to the concerned Personal Assistant. He sought an unqualified apology mentioning in his show cause that this Court had rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner, but in the operative part of the order, instead of recording the rejection, it was inadvertently typed as "allowed." He has mentioned that on the very same day, i.e., 27.08.2025, he received the information about the sudden demise of his maternal uncle, due to which, he was in deep grief. 4. The reply to the show cause is accepted. 5. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, paragraph no. 6 of the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this Court is modified to the extent that the prayer for bail in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 287 of 2024 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali is hereby rejected. 6. The learned court below is directed to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner, if already furnished and accepted. 7. Let the copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Court through FAX immediately." 

The penultimate order dated August 27, 2025 by Justice Pandey reads:"2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 287 of 2024 registered under Sections 20(b)IIB of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. According to FIR, co-accused Dhawan Kumar was arrested with 6.33 kg of ganja. Dhawan Kumar disclosed to police personnel that his father had asked to handover the assignment to the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He was not arrested at the spot and nothing was recovered from his possession. The name of the petitioner has figured in the confessional statement of the co-accused. 5. On behalf of the State, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner submitting that the petitioner is an assignee of the consignment and he has one criminal antecedent. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 287 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 

Supreme Court's order reads:"....2. Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. FIR No.287/2024 was registered on 23.10.2024. It is the case of the prosecution that on receipt of the secret information, Mr. Dhawan Kumar would proceed towards Imadpur on his Honda motorcycle carrying Ganja, the said vehicle was intercepted by putting up the barricade and the said vehicle was seized and Mr. Dhawan Kumar was apprehended and from his conscious possession, 6.330 kg of Ganja was seized. On inquiry, he had stated that his father had given it to him for being delivered to the appellant herein. As such based on the statement of Mr. Dhawan Kumar, the appellant is arraigned as an accused." 

Supreme Court observed:"....we notice that initially the jurisdictional High Court had granted bail on 27.08.2025 (Annexure-P/3) to appellant herein. However, by the impugned order, the same was reversed or recalled on the premise that Court Master though had recorded as petition having been rejected in the operative portion had mistakenly written as “allowed”. The High Court also noted in the impugned order that the Personal Assistant when visited with a show-cause notice had tendered unqualified apology and had stated that it was an inadvertent error which was on account of said employee being in deep grief due to the sudden demise of his maternal uncle and as such accepting the said unconditional apology tendered by the Court Master, the order of granting the bail came to be reversed or recalled." 

The judgement reads:"...we deem it apposite to note Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which clearly mandates that once the judgment or order is signed, no alternation or review of the same is permissible except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. In the instant case, there being no clerical or arithmetical error which had crept in, yet the High Court recalled the earlier order granted bail by impugned order and it was not justified in undertaking to recall the order dated 27.08.2025 by the impugned order 30.08.2025. In other words, the order granting bail has been reversed or recalled by the impugned order which is impermissible in law and as same would not be sustainable even for a moment. Hence, same is set aside." 

Supreme Court observed:"....we notice at the cost of the repetition that appellant herein has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of the co-accused statement. As to the actual complicity of the appellant is an issue which will have to be thrashed out after trial and as such the appellant would be entitled for being released on bail. 8. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and though we restore the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the High Court, we make it clear that the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit."