Anticipatory bail is not maintainable for bailable offences as the accused has a statutory right to bail.

The petitioners (Rajaram Yadav, Sunita Yadav, and Amit Yadav) were accused in Crime No. 203/2026 for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

They previously filed an anticipatory bail application (MCRCA No. 528/2026), which was heard on 10.04.2026. During that hearing, the Court found the offenses to be bailable and dismissed the application as non-maintainable while granting liberty to revive it if non-bailable offenses were added.

However, due to a clerical error by the stenographer, the written order incorrectly reflected that the bail was rejected on "merits" as if it were a regular bail application.

The petitioners filed the present Miscellaneous Criminal Petition (CRMP) seeking modification/recall of the erroneous order to reflect the true judicial intent.

1. Whether a clerical or typographical error in a judicial order that misrepresents the court’s reasoning can be corrected under the Court's inherent powers.

2. Whether an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable when the alleged offenses are bailable in nature.

The court applied the inherent powers of the High Court to correct clerical, arithmetical, or accidental slips in judicial orders to secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the maintainability of anticipatory bail.

The core legal principle established is that where offenses are bailable, the accused has a statutory right to bail, rendering the remedy of anticipatory bail legally unnecessary and non-maintainable.

The Court observed that a clear discrepancy existed between the oral adjudication on 10.04.2026 and the transcribed order. While the Court had determined the application was maintainable only for non-bailable offenses and dismissed it because the current charges (Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), and 324(2) of the BNS) were bailable, the written record suggested a merits-based rejection.

The Court reasoned that leaving such an error uncorrected would cause "unnecessary hardship and prejudice" to the petitioners during the furnishing of bail bonds before police.

By invoking its power to correct "accidental slips," the Court substituted the incorrect reasoning with a fresh order clarifying that the dismissal was solely on the technical ground of non-maintainability due to the bailable nature of the offenses.

The Court issued a fresh order dismissing the anticipatory bail application with liberty to the petitioners to apply again should non-bailable offenses be added subsequently. The Registry was directed to correct the record and place the modified order alongside the original.