ONCE again in the judgement of the case – Union of India through IO, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma ,delivered on February 28, 2025, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan, at the Supreme Court, have underscored the comment, that time and again, the acts of Courts overstepping the bounds of jurisdiction, has clearly been frowned upon. This case is another such example. It is undisputed that the application for bail filed before Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had become infructuous, since the District Court had already released the respondent herein.

 

The straightforward course of action, that ought to have been adopted, therefore, was that the bail application would have been dismissed as such. No occasion arose for the Court to pass an order delving into the aspects of impermissibility of re-testing and/ or wrongful confinement. Not only was the same outside the bounds, but it is erroneous on further count that since the application was infructuous, the exercise of jurisdiction was entirely unjustified and contrary to law. In the Supreme Court judgements in the cases- Rudal Sah, D K Basu and Nilabati Behera cited before the Court, it was noticed that these judgements were rendered by the Court under its Article 32 jurisdiction, which is a remedy available to any person, whose fundamental rights have been violated. So, whereas the Court has indeed held permissibility of grant of compensation, it has done so in the context of violation of fundamental rights. The undue restriction of liberty, that is, 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 lawyer, none was availed in the present facts.

 

In a joint operation, the appellant- NCB seized 1280 grams of brown powder (allegedly heroin) from the possession of Man Singh Verma (respondent herein) and one Aman Singh. Accordingly criminal case was registered against the respondent under section 8(C) 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on January 6, 2023. Consequently he was remanded to judicial custody. NCB prepared an arrest memo on the same date and drew four samples from the recovered substance. Two of these samples were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory – CRPL, New Delhi for chemical examination. While awaiting the results from the Laboratory, the respondent filed application for bail before the Special Judge, NDPS, Barabanki. On January 24, 2023, this application was rejected. This was followed by the respondent moving the HC.

 

On January 30, 2023, the CRPL issued its report that the sample tested negative for heroin and other narcotic substances. Following this, the Investigating Officer sought and was granted permission to send another set of sample to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. On April 5, 2023, the report received from CFSL, Chandigarh found that result of the second sample was also negative for any narcotic substance. On April 6, 2023, NCB filed a closure report before the Special Judge and pursuant to that the respondent was released from the District Jail on April 10, 2023 under an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge. Despite filing of the closure report and the respondent’s release, the HC proceeded to adjudicate the pending bail application and passed the impugned order with the observation that the respondent was a young person who was wrongfully confined for four months despite the initial laboratory finding and, therefore, directed the Director, NCB to pay Rs 5 Lakh as compensation to the respondent within two months and to be followed by a compliance affidavit. This led to filing of an application for modification by the appellant-Director seeking waiver of the compensation, which was rejected by the HC on July 16, 2024 on the ground that the application is barred under section 362 of the CrPC, 1973. In the judgement of the case – Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat- (2019) 14 SCC 522, while examining a case, wherein the HC had ordered the accused as well as the relatives of the victim to undergo scientific tests, namely, lie detector, brain mapping and narco –analysis, held that, by ordering such tests, the HC has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini-trial and was in contravention of the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence and the statutory requirements. In its decision of the case – State v. M Murugesan – (2020) 15 SCC 251, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to grant or refusal to grant bail, pending trial.

 

In this case, the HC, while taking a decision on bail application, had retained the file and directed the State to form a committee and seek its recommendations on the reformation and rehabilitation of convict/accused persons. The Court held that while giving such direction the HC has committed grave illegality. The SC has held that the jurisdiction under section 439 CrPC ends when the bail application is finally decided. The SC’s finding in the case is “We find that the Madras HC Single Judge has collated data from the State and made that part of the order after the decision of the bail application, as if the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order under the guise of improving the criminal justice system in the State.

 

The jurisdiction of the Court under section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or not to grant bail, pending trial. Even though the object of the Hon’ble Judge was laudable, but the jurisdiction exercised was clearly erroneous. Such directions could not be issued under the colour of office of the Court.” The Supreme Court has accepted the submission of the Union of India that grant of compensation to the tune of Rs 5 lakh was without the authority of law. Therefore, order of the High Court has to be set aside, to this extent. The SC has allowed the appeal in part. The SC has stated that its observations do not preclude any remedy and are to be read to the limited extent of correctness of grant of compensation in adjudication of bail application.