Issue
Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Rajendra Prasad Arya
v.
State Of Bihar
(Supreme Court Of India)
Petn(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3063 of 1999 (Cri. M. No. 13745 of 1998) | 28-02-2000
The accused is the petitioner in the present case and had filed an application for being released on bail while the matter is still pending before the trial Judge. On 21-7-1998, it appears, the Court rejected his prayer for bail. But, unfortunately in the order-sheet of the proceeding it was indicated that the accused has been released on bail and pursuant to that order, in fact, the accused was released on bail.
2. Later on the Court came to know of a wrong order having been incorporated and recalled the earlier order passed on 21-7-1998 and incorporated the correct order, namely, refusing the prayer for bail and directing the trial Judge to bring the petitioner into custody. On 17-5-1999 when the Court recalled the earlier order dated 21-7-1998, admittedly the accused was not heard. The only question for consideration is whether the Court ought to have heard the accused on that date before making necessary corrections in the order-sheet dated 21-7-1998. There is no dispute with the proposition that the Court has always the power to rectify any mistake committed by it. But since the accused has already been released pursuant to an earlier order incorporated in the order-sheet, the accused ought to have been heard before making any alteration/correction in the order in question.
3. Since the accused was not heard before making the correction by order dated 17-5-1999, we quash the said order dated 17-5-1999. It would be open for the High Court to make necessary rectification/correction by giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused. This Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
2. Later on the Court came to know of a wrong order having been incorporated and recalled the earlier order passed on 21-7-1998 and incorporated the correct order, namely, refusing the prayer for bail and directing the trial Judge to bring the petitioner into custody. On 17-5-1999 when the Court recalled the earlier order dated 21-7-1998, admittedly the accused was not heard. The only question for consideration is whether the Court ought to have heard the accused on that date before making necessary corrections in the order-sheet dated 21-7-1998. There is no dispute with the proposition that the Court has always the power to rectify any mistake committed by it. But since the accused has already been released pursuant to an earlier order incorporated in the order-sheet, the accused ought to have been heard before making any alteration/correction in the order in question.
3. Since the accused was not heard before making the correction by order dated 17-5-1999, we quash the said order dated 17-5-1999. It would be open for the High Court to make necessary rectification/correction by giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused. This Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Advocates List
Ms. Upasana Dubey, For S. R. Setia, B. B. Singh, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE G. B. PATTANAIK
HON'BLE JUSTICE U. C. BANERJEE
Eq Citation
AIR 2000 SC 3536
(2000) 9 SCC 514
2000 CRILJ 4046
JT 2000 (7) SC 338
LQ/SC/2000/417
HeadNote
Constitution of India — Arts. 21 and 14 — Bail — Recall of order rejecting bail — Accused released on bail pursuant to wrong order — Held, accused ought to have been heard before making any alteration/correction in order in question
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
