Jurisdiction U/S. 439 CrPC Is Limited To Grant Or Refusal Of Bail: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC Order Directing NCB To Pay 5L Compensation To NDPS Accused

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Union of India, through NCB, challenging the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan asserted, “Time and again, the act of Courts overstepping the bounds of jurisdiction, has clearly been frowned upon. The instant case is another such example.”

Factual Background

In a joint operation, the NCB seized 1280 grams of brown powder (allegedly heroin) from the possession of one Man Singh Verma (respondent herein) and one Aman Singh. Accordingly, a Criminal Case was registered against the respondent under Sections 8(C), 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While awaiting the results of the samples from the laboratory, the respondent filed an application seeking bail but the same was rejected. Consequently, the respondent approached the High Court. The Central Revenue Control Laboratory issued its report stating that the sample tested negative for heroin and other narcotic substances.

The report received from Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, showed that the second set of samples also tested negative for any narcotic substance. The NCB filed a closure report before the Special Judge, NDPS, pursuant to which the respondent was released from the District Jail. Despite the respondent’s release, the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the pending bail application and, vide the impugned order, observed that the respondent was a young person who had been wrongfully confined for four months despite the initial laboratory finding. The High Court also directed the Director, NCB, to pay Rs.5,00,000 as compensation to the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant-Authority approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, referred to various precedents and observed, “It is a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial. In the following decisions, this Court has time and again held that the sphere of consideration, when exercising power under this Section, pertains only to securing or restricting liberty of the person in question.”

As per the Bench, the straightforward course of action would have been adopted and the bail application would have been dismissed as such. No occasion arose for the Court to pass an order delving into the aspects of the impermissibility of retesting and/or wrongful confinement. “Not only was the same outside the bounds, as discussed above, but it is erroneous on a further count that since the application was infructuous, the exercise of jurisdiction was entirely unjustified and contrary to law”, it said.

“The undue restriction of liberty, i.e., without the backing of procedures established by law is unquestionably an affront to a person’s rights but the avenues to seek recourse of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per law. However, none was availed in the present facts”, the Bench added.

Allowing the appeal partly, the Bench stated, “As such, we accept the submission of the Union of India that grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was without the authority of law. The order of the High Court, therefore, to this extent has to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is allowed partly.”

Cause Title: Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 292)

Click here to read/download Judgment