Rajendra Prasad Arya Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Petition’s for Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 3083/1999
Petitioner: Rajendra Prasad Arya
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Petition’s for Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 3083/1999
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 28, 2000
Appearances:
Ms. Upasana Dubey, Advocate for Mr. S.R. Setia.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439 with Constitution of India 1950 – Article 136 – Bail – Court re-jecting bail, but order-sheet, indicating grant of bail – Accused released – Later, court recalling the order – Accused not heard – Power of Court to rectify the orders. Held accused should have been heard. Orders rectifying the orders of grant of bail set aside. High Court directed to rectify on giving opportunity to accused. (Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. 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 that 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 the necessary corrections in the order-sheet dated 21.7.1998. There is no disp-ute 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 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 dispose of ac-cordingly.
1. 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 that 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 the necessary corrections in the order-sheet dated 21.7.1998. There is no disp-ute 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 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 dispose of ac-cordingly.
