The Supreme Court set aside the direction issued by the High Court in a bail application whereby it directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case based on a statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of the High Court directing the Director, the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case based on the statement of one Dr. Umakant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 and conduct investigation thereon in a bail application.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “We are afraid that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been brought out from the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or a statement made by the Investigating Officer, who was present in the Court, without verifying the records. We are also bound by the precedents which unequivocally hold that there can be no such direction issued in a bail application.”

Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate G Umapathy represented the Respondent.

Arguments

The Counsel appearing for the State disapproved of such directions being issued in a bail application which, according to him, had been deprecated by the Apex Court. It was further submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Government had requested the Government of India for a C.B.I. inquiry in the years 2022 and 2023 but there was a communication made saying that the same would not be feasible. It was contended that the investigation had considerably progressed by now and transferring the same would seriously affect the morale of the State Police.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan and another (2020) wherein it was unequivocally held that the jurisdiction in a bail application ends when a bail application is finally decided, either granting or refusing bail. Therein, after taking a decision on the bail application, the High Court retained the file and directed the State to form a Committee and seek its recommendations on improving the quality of investigation; which was held to be improper, finding no such jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The Bench also observed how in Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS and others (2023) and Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma (2025), the act of the Courts overstepping the limits of its jurisdiction has been frowned upon.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, it was noticed that the bail application stood allowed but the directions were issued based on a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, confronted to the Investigating Officer present in Court, who also stated that the allegations made therein were not verified from the senior officers of the Government. Finding that no exceptional circumstance was brought out from the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the Bench held that there could be no such direction issued in a bail application.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “The impugned order is set aside to the extent the directions are issued to the C.B.I. We make it clear that even the State did not have an objection to the bail granted in the present appeal and in that circumstance, we have refrained from looking at the facts leading to the investigation; lest that, in any manner, interfere with the investigation.”

Cause Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Ritu Garg & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 385)

Appearance:

Appellant: Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, Senior AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AOR Ruchira Goel, Advocate Indira Bhakar

Respondent: Senior Advocates G Umapathy, Santosh Kumar, Advocate Prafulla Ranjan Tiwary, AOR Arvind Gupta, ASG S D Sanjay, AOR Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates Padmesh Mishra, Sarthak Karol, Kartikeya Asthana, Sweksha, AOR Sakshi Kakkar

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaChief Justice K Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.