Patna High Court – Orders
Mohmad Nazir Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48123 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27665 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- UCHKAGAON District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Mohmad Nazir Alam S/o Late Abdul Rahman @ Abdur Rahman Resident of
vill- Piprahi, P.S- Uchkagaon, Distt.- Gopalganj
2. Sakil Ahmad @ Sakil @ Jhuna Alam S/o Mohmad Nazir Alam Resident of
vill- Piprahi, P.S- Uchkagaon, Distt.- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Harsh Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 08-08-2025
Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
2. The present application under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S. has been preferred for modification of Paragraph No. 3
of the bail application being Cr. Misc. No. 27665/2025 which
was disposed of granting bail to the petitioners vide order dated
23.06.2025.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the bail application was heard and allowed vide order dated
23.06.2025, however, there was one condition which was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48123 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
2/8
imposed by this Hon’ble Court being condition ‘d’ which is to
the extent mentioned below:-
“d. And further condition that the court
below shall verify the criminal antecedent of
the petitioners and in case at any stage it is
found that the petitioners have concealed
their criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bond
of the petitioners. However, the acceptance
of bail bands in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.”
4. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that due to
inadvertence the following cases could not be disclosed in
Paragraph ‘3’ of the said bail application in respect of the two
petitioners, which are as under:-
Petitioner No.1
(i) Complaint Case No. 788 of 2018 under section
420, 467, 468, 217, 218, 167, 194, 471/34 IPC/Trial No. 155 of
2025. The petitioner has already been granted Bail vide order
dated 22.10.2018 by Learned CJM, Gopalganj.
Petitioner No. 2
(i) Gopalpur P.S Case No. 66 of 2018 under section
447, 448, 341, 323, 379, 504, 34, 307, 354 of IPC read with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48123 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
3/8
section 25 (1-B) a, 35.37 b of the Arms Act. The petitioner no. 2
has been granted Bail by Hon’ble Court vide Criminal Misc. No.
70801 of 2018 vide Order dated 18.12.2018. Petitioner No. 1
has also been granted Bail by same Order.
(ii) Complaint Case No. 788 of 2018 under section
420, 467, 468, 217, 218, 167, 194, 471/34 IPC/Trial No. 155 of
2025. The petitioner has already been granted Bail vide order
dated 22.10.2018 by Learned CJM, Gopalganj.
(iii) Fhulwaria PS Case No. 26 of 2018 under section
447,323,379, 504, 506, 34. The petitioner has already been
granted Bail in 2018 itself.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has mainly submitted that
the aforesaid non-disclosure of the antecedents of the petitioners
was on account of inadvertence and was a bona fide mistake and
there was no intention of the petitioners to suppress the
antecedents, especially for the reason that petitioner no. 1 had
earlier disclosed that he carried seven criminal antecedents
while petitioner no. 2 had one criminal antecedent. It is, thus,
submitted that the mistake was non-intentional and there was no
ulterior motive to suppress the information with regard to the
antecedent and, therefore, paragraph no. 3 of the bail application
can be modified to the aforesaid extent and the criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48123 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
4/8
antecedent now mentioned in the paragraph ‘4’ of the present
application be treated as part of paragraph no. 3 of the main bail
application.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant has opposed the prayer for modification and has
submitted that in the present case, the non-disclosure of the
complete antecedents was intentional as during the course of
hearing of the main bail application, this issue was raised on
behalf of the informant; however, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners stood by his ground and had stated that the
declaration made in Paragraph ‘3’ of the petition is true and
there was no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the informant has, thus
submitted that once the petitioners had let go an opportunity of
making necessary corrections during the pendency of the bail
application there is no occasion for any further modification of
the said bail application and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the informant has also submitted that the
petitioners were not fair enough and the application for
modification was not filed immediately but only when the
objection was raised before the learned court below after
acceptance of the bail bond with regard to their criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48123 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
5/8
antecedents and suppression thereof before the Hon’ble High
Court, the present application for modification has been filed,
which goes on to show that the petitioners had deliberately and
intentionally withheld the information with regard to the other
antecedents which is found to be four in number jointly of the
petitioners and therefore, the present modification is completely
misconceived.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant has raised another question with regard to the
maintainability of the present application as the present
application has been filed after disposal of the main bail
application i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 27665/2025 and therefore, no
modification can be allowed in an application which already
stands disposed of.
9. Before adverting into the merits of the case relevant
provisions for deciding the issue which needs reference to are
firstly Section 403 of B.N.S.S. (362 of Cr.P.C.) provides as
under:-
“403. Court not to alter judgment.
Save as otherwise provided by this
Sanhita or by any other law for the time
being in force, no Court, when it has
signed its judgment or final order
disposing of a case, shall alter or review
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48123 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
6/8the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error.”
10. Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C./ 483(1)(b) B.N.S.S.
proviso is provided hereunder for a ready reference:-
” 439. Special powers of High Court or
Court of Session regarding bail.
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may
direct –
(a)……;
(b) that any condition imposed by a
Magistrate when releasing any person on bail
be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the
Court of Session shall, before granting bail to
a person who is accused of an offence which
is triable exclusively by the Court of Session
or which, though not so triable, is punishable
with imprisonment for life, give notice of the
application for bail to the Public Prosecutor
unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to
give such notice: Provided further that the
High Court or the Court of Session shall,
before granting bail to a person who is
accused of an offence triable under section 65
or sub-section (2) of section 70 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, give notice of
the application for bail to the Public
Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days
from the date of receipt of the notice of such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48123 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
7/8application.”
11. Considering the aforesaid statutory provisions of
law, I am of the opinion that Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. is the
only provision which gives express power to High Court and
Court of Sessions to modify and alter the condition imposed by
Magistrate while granting bail, and no such power has been
given to the High Court and the Sessions Court to modify or
alter the conditions of bail orders passed by it by a subsequent
order.
12. This Court is aware that a bail order is an
interlocutory order, but Cr.P.C./ B.N.S.S. does not provide
power of review to courts exercising power under criminal
jurisdiction. Section 362 Cr.P.C./ 403 of B.N.S.S. is mandatory
in nature and provides that only clerical and arithmetic errors
can be corrected in judgments, signs and orders disposing of a
case. The final order and judgment shall not be reviewed, but
only arithmetic or clerical errors can be looked into. The
condition of a bail order, in my opinion, is not clerical or
arithmetical and the said condition is intentionally imposed by
the Court granting bail to an accused person. Therefore, power
not directly and expressly provided to court cannot be said to be
impliedly provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48123 of 2025(3) dt.08-08-2025
8/8
13. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that an
application which has already been disposed of vide order dated
23.06.2025 cannot be modified through an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., as this Court after disposing of the said bail
application become functus officio.
14. Therefore, in view of the discussions made
hereinabove, I find that the present application for modification
is not maintainable and is, thus dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
tusharika/-
U T