Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Order Issuing Far Reaching Directions While Exercising Bail Jurisdiction U/S 483 Of BNSS
The Supreme Court earlier posted the matter for consideration regarding the issue of the power to issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction.
Taking note of the far reaching directions issued while deciding a bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court mandating the Trial Court to follow the judgments in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P. (2023) and Jitendra v. State of U.P. (2023).
The Apex Court, however, clarified that the steps taken by the State authorities would remain unaffected.
The matter was posted for consideration on a subsequent date regarding the issue of the power of the Court to issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “In view of this short discussion alone, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment in so far as it directs following what has been laid in the earlier bail orders, cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.”
Advocate Uday Prakash Yadav represented the Appellant while AOR Akshay Amritanshu represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was booked in a case registered under Sections 419,420.467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. While dismissing the bail application, the Court directed that the Trial Court should issue summons under Section 62 and 69 Cr.P.C. and also take coercive measures as against those persons who delay or impede proceedings. The High Court had also sought affidavits on the system of departmental accountability of officials for service of summons and execution of coercive measures issued by the Trial Courts.
In terms of an order dated September 14, 2023, the Single Judge observed that the criminal justice system within the State suffered from great difficulties in the delay of execution of summons and the production of witnesses. As such, he called for affidavits of the concerned authorities. Vide an interim order dated November 26, 2025, the Apex Court released the appellant on bail and then posted the matter for consideration on a subsequent date regarding the issue of the power of the Court to issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that a recent case viz., State of U.P. v. Anurudh (2026) , also arose from a matter before the Allahabad High Court wherein, similar to the present case, far reaching directions were issued by the Court under bail jurisdiction, mandating the scientific determination of the age of the victim in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, in teeth of the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 which is also applicable to the former. The Apex Court had held the same to be impermissible in spite of reference to Article 21.
The Bench thus set aside the impugned judgment directing following what had been laid in the earlier bail orders.
“However, in the interest of justice we direct that the steps that have been taken by the State authorities shall remain unaffected and continue to function independent of the orders in which they stood issued. The State shall be at liberty to modify the same to be in consonance with the prevalent laws of the land should the need so arise”, it held.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “The order dated 26th November 2025 is confirmed with the stipulation as mentioned in the said order.”
Cause Title: Rambalak v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 511)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Uday Prakash Yadav, AOR Ramjee Pandey, Advocates Sneha Singh, Ravi Pandey, Anugrah Singh
Respondent: AOR Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate Sarthak Srivastava