Allowed¶17

Sahil Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC1 Aug 2025BAIL APPLN./2872/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court bail application clarification/modification order (Justice Girish Kathpalia, 04.08.2025) correcting a typographical error in the bail order dated 01.08.2025: FIR No.617/2025 corrected to FIR No.167/2025 (PS Hari Nagar). Applicant/accused Sahil Arora; counsel Shekhar Nanavaty; APP Amit Ahlawat; Registry objection to application title; verification against Annexure A-2; order made part of oral judgment and copy conveyed to Jail Superintendent.

What did the court decide?

Clarification/correction effected: the bail order (oral judgment) dated 01.08.2025 is declared to pertain to FIR No.167/2025 and not FIR No.617/2025; the correcting order is made part of that oral judgment and a copy is to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for immediate conveyance to the accused/applicant. ¶17

Sahil Arora Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR number recorded in the bail order/oral judgment of 01.08.2025 (given as FIR No.617/2025 of PS Hari Nagar) was an inadvertent typographical error requiring correction to FIR No.167/2025. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

After examining the entire record and finding the annexed FIR (Annexure A-2) to be FIR No.167/2025, the Court concluded that the recording of FIR No.617/2025 in the bail order was an inadvertent typographical error.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The application is allowed; it is made clear that the bail order/oral judgment dated 01.08.2025 was passed in case FIR No.167/2025 and not FIR No.617/2025, and this correcting order forms part of that oral judgment, with a copy to be conveyed to the Jail Superintendent for the accused/applicant.

¶17

Key takeaways

In view of the liberty of the individual involved, and despite the Registry's objection to its title, the application is directed to be formally registered 'as it is'.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Appln. 2872/2025 (Crl.M.A. for clarification/modification), High Court of Delhi, order dated 04.08.2025 per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia. Applicant Sahil Arora, already ordered released on bail vide oral judgment dated 01.08.2025, sought correction of the FIR number recited in that judgment: counsel admitted that, by inadvertent typographical error in his office, the prayer clause had carried FIR No.617/2025 of PS Hari Nagar instead of the correct FIR No.167/2025. After the Registry objected to the application's title (clarification versus modification), the Judge, mindful of the liberty of the individual involved, directed its registration 'as it is', and the APP for State raised no objection. Examining the entire record and finding the annexed FIR (Annexure A-2) to bear No.167/2025, the Court held the discrepancy to be an inadvertent typographical error, allowed the application, and made clear that the bail order dated 01.08.2025 was passed in FIR No.167/2025 and not FIR No.617/2025; the order was made part of the oral judgment and a copy sent to the Jail Superintendent for immediate conveyance to the applicant.

¶1

$~78A

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ BAIL APPLN. 2872/2025

¶4

SAHIL ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

O R D E R % 04.08.2025

¶10

CRL.M.A. (for clarification/modification)

¶11

The matter was taken up at the time of mentioning by learned counsel for accused/applicant and he was granted time to file the present application with the registry. But now it is submitted by learned counsel that the Registry has raised an objection regarding the title of the application as to whether it is for clarification or modification.

¶12

Keeping in mind the issue of liberty of an individual involved, it is directed that the application be formally registered as it is.

¶13

Copy of application is supplied to learned APP for State and after examining the same, he has no objection to this application.

¶14

Vide Oral Judgment dated 01.08.2025, the accused/applicant was directed to be released on bail in case FIR No.617/2025 of PS Hari Nagar. The said FIR number in the Oral Judgment was recorded on the basis of the

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2025 at 11:59:56

¶16

number mentioned in the prayer clause of the application. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that by inadvertent typographical error in his office, the FIR number was wrongly mentioned as FIR No.617/2025 instead of FIR No.167/2025. To that extent, correction is sought in the bail order.

¶17

I have examined the entire record. The FIR in which the bail order was passed is Annexure A-2 and the same is mentioned as FIR No.167/2025. I am satisfied that it was an inadvertent typographical error. 6. Therefore, this application is allowed and it is made clear that the bail order/oral judgment dated 01.08.2025 was passed in case FIR No.167/2025 and not in FIR No.617/2025. 7. This order shall form part of the Oral Judgment dated 01.08.2025 and a copy of this order also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being immediately conveyed to the accused/applicant.

¶18

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

¶19

AUGUST 4, 2025/ ry

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/08/2025 at 11:59:56

Sahil Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Rahul Dev Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ketan Malkan Vs State NCT of Delhi

Rihan Vs State NCT of Delhi

Rajesh Kumar Vs Dinesh Kumar