Mumbai: In the legal world, where every word is weighed with care, a single typo can topple more than just grammar. This week, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found itself in a judicial blooper reel after an “oops” moment led to a murder accused being granted bail instead of being firmly told to stay put behind bars.
About The Mix-Up
The mix-up emerged on August 8, when a lawyer for one of the co-accused sheepishly informed the Court that the outcomes of two connected bail pleas had been… well, swapped. The accused who was supposed to get bail had been refused, while the one who was meant to be refused had been given the green light to freedom. Think of it as accidentally serving dessert to the wrong table—except the “dessert” here was temporary liberty for someone accused of murder reported Bar and Bench.
About The Incident
The incident traces back to a July 2024 assault in which three men allegedly attacked another man, causing his death. Two accused, Halke and Dharmendra, allegedly used sticks, while a third, Ashok, reportedly landed a fatal stone blow to the victim’s chest. Both Halke and Ashok applied for bail, and their petitions were listed together. On August 7, the Court, in all earnestness, granted Halke bail, stating the usual legal disclaimer of “no opinion on merits.”
Meanwhile, in a separate order, Ashok’s bail plea was dismissed on account of “gravity of the offence” and “nature of allegations.” So far, so good. Except, not so good. The very next day, Ashok’s lawyer dropped the plot twist: the bail orders had been switched. Halke’s granted bail was meant to be denied, and Ashok’s denied bail was meant to be granted. This was less “justice is blind” and more “justice accidentally swapped her spectacles.”
Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta quickly hit the judicial ‘undo’ button, recalling both orders. “The submission appears to be correct,” the Court noted, with the restrained understatement of someone realising they’ve just sent a WhatsApp meant for one group into another. The matter has now been relisted, presumably with the outcomes double-checked, triple-checked, and perhaps typed in bold caps lock. Moral of the story? In courtrooms, typos don’t just cost marks— they can accidentally open prison gates.
