Correction of clerical errors in judicial orders involving inadvertent substitution of unrelated case facts.

The petitioner originally sought bail in M.Cr.C. No. 22830 of 2026. On 18.06.2026, the High Court passed an order granting bail; however, that order inadvertently recorded facts pertaining to a different case involving the NDPS Act (6.6 kg of Ganja).

In reality, the petitioner’s case concerned a "bail jump" arising from Crime No. 113/2020 at P.S. Endori, District Bhind, involving Sections 399, 400, and 402 of the IPC and Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act.

The petitioner moved the present application (M.Cr.C. No. 29962 of 2026) seeking correction and modification of the clerical errors in the previous order.

1. Whether the typographical and clerical errors in the order dated 18.06.2026, which misstated the facts and applicable statutes of the petitioner's case, merit rectification in the interest of justice.

The court exercised its inherent power to correct clerical and typographical errors in judicial records to ensure the record reflects the actual proceedings of the case.

Regarding the substantive bail, the court applied Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (alternatively Section 483 of the BNSS) concerning the grant of bail, alongside the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra (MPDVPK) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court acknowledged that the order dated 18.06.2026 contained significant "typographical and clerical" errors where the details of an NDPS case were erroneously substituted for the petitioner’s actual charges under the MPDVPK Act and IPC.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Court found it necessary to substitute the incorrect facts with the actual circumstances: that the petitioner had previously been granted bail but failed to appear on 07.11.2023, leading to his arrest via production warrant.

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete and the petitioner undertook to abide by strict conditions—including weekly reporting to the police station—he was entitled to bail despite the previous "bail jump".

Holding that the applicant is entitled to bail, the Court ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety. The Court imposed specific conditions, including a requirement for the applicant to mark his presence at P.S. Endori every Sunday and a warning that any future "bail jump" or involvement in similar offences would result in automatic cancellation of the bail.