1. Application for modification of bail order due to omission of a section — Criminal Reader refused to process bail papers causing continued detention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Avanindra Kumar Singh, J.
Jeeshan Khan – Applicant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Misc. Criminal case No. 10073 of 2026
Decided On : 05-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Mansoori Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Samta Jain, learned Government Advocate
For the Applicant :Mr. Mansoori Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Samta Jain, learned Government Advocate
Technical omissions in a bail order, such as a missing section, should not be used to deny the release of an individual if basic identifying particulars are present, as the constitutional right to liberty cannot be compromised by clerical technicalities.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 296, 109, 3(5) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 3(2)(V), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - Modification of bail order - Technical omission of a section in the bail order - Refusal of court official to process bail papers - Right to liberty - As long as basic particulars such as case number, crime number, and the name of the accused are available, sufficient to identify the individual, technical omissions in the order cannot be used as a pretext to keep the person in custody - Nitpicking of court orders on technical grounds, resulting in the denial of liberty, constitutes a serious dereliction of duty. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Liberty is a precious right guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be bartered away on the altar of technicalities. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An applicant was granted bail by the High Court, but a court official refused to present the bail papers before the presiding officer because one section of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was missing from the bail order due to a typographical error. This occurred despite the order correctly mentioning the case number, crime number, and the name of the accused. As a result, the applicant remained in custody for more than 12 days after the bail was granted.
Findings of Court:
The procedure adopted by the court official was invalid. It was the duty of the official to present the papers before the judge if any omission was found, allowing the judge to pass a legal order. When the order contains sufficient reference to the case and the identity of the accused, it is sufficient for the purpose of furnishing bail.
Issues: Whether a typographical omission of a specific section in a bail order justifies a court official's refusal to process the release of an accused when other identifying particulars are clearly mentioned.
Ratio Decidendi: Personal liberty is a fundamental right that outweighs clerical technicalities. If an individual is identifiable through basic case details, the refusal to implement a release order due to technical nitpicking is an invalid procedure and a dereliction of duty.
Result: M.Cr.C. is allowed to the extent indicated above and disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
-
right to life and personal liberty
- liberty (Para 5)
-
right to life and personal liberty
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Applicant submitted that Criminal Reader improperly returned bail papers due to typographical error; State heard but no specific submission recorded. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. M.Cr.C. allowed; earlier bail order to be read with this order; application disposed of. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Is a Criminal Reader justified in refusing to process bail papers due to a typographical omission of a section?
No. The Criminal Reader must place papers before the Presiding Officer, who is obliged to pass a legal order; the Reader's refusal to do so is invalid. (Para 5 )
5. What constitutes sufficient particulars in a bail order to enable its execution?
Sufficient reference to the case number, crime number, and accused's name in the order is adequate to identify the accused and the case; nitpicking on technicalities is not permissible. (Para 6 )
6. Can liberty be denied on the basis of a procedural technicality in a bail order?
No. Liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be denied on the altar of technicalities; courts must prioritize substance over form. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1.This M.Cr.C. is filed for modification of order passed by this Court on 19.02.2026 in CRA No. 1782 of 2026.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that bail papers were furnished before the Criminal Reader of the learned Special Judge, Jabalpur, Shri Suresh Kumar. The Criminal Reader pointed out that there is a mistake in the order of this Court dated 19.02.2026 wherein out of 6 Sections, one Section is not mentioned in the bail order, which is Section 3(1)(s) of S.C./ S.T. Act relating to abuse of any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. It is submitted that other Sections were mentioned correctly in the order, which are Section 296 , 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V), 3(1)(r) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. It is submitted that in the concerned order, it was already mentioned that the applicant is in jail since 10.07.2025. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that bail papers were furnished on 20.02.2026 but since the Criminal Reader choose not to put the bail papers before the learned Special Judge and returned papers for correction of order, therefore, his client remained in jail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the State also.
5. It is prima facie view of this Court that the procedure adopted by the Criminal Reader of concerned Court is not valid. In fact, if he found anything missing in the order, it was his duty to put the papers before the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge was obliged to pass legal order as he deemed fit.
6. The important points in a case are Case No. which is mentioned in the order of this Court dated 19.02.2026, which is Special Case No. 261/2025, Crime No. 485/2025 is also mentioned. The name of the accused Jeeshan Khan is also mentioned, therefore, prima-facie to this Court, the order which runs into three pages was sufficient so as to identify the accused and the case for whom bail was sought to be furnished but by adopting wrong procedure by the Criminal Reader the applicant was made to remain in wrongful custody for more than 12 days, therefore, to satisfy the wrong notions of the Criminal Reader it is mentioned that in the application filed by the applicant for bail, Section 3(1)(s) of S.C./ S.T. Act was also mentioned, which has been left out due to typographical error, but this was no reason not to put the bail papers before the Presiding Officer of Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aftab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ; Misc. Application No. 1086/2025 in Crl. A. No. 2295/2025; 2025 LiveLaw (SC)687 has held thus :-
"2. Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the order dated 27.05.2025 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, which was a release order mentioned all the details except that when it came to Section 5 the sub- section (1) was not mentioned and as such a correction application was moved by the Jailor on 28.05.2025. Since the said application was not disposed of, the applicant/petitioner was not released till yesterday.
3. We asked Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General after drawing her attention to the release order as to whether the release order contained all the necessary particulars like:- the name of the detenue, the father’s name, the crime number and the Police Station with respect to the case instituted against him as well as the details of the Sections of the IPC (Section 366) and the Sections concerned under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (Sections 3 and 5). The learned Additional Advocate General categorically stated that all the necessary particulars do find mention and the only reason the release could not be effected was because the modification application filed before the District and Sessions Judge to modify the release order to add sub-section(1) of Section 5 was not disposed off.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General also drew at
