UNION OF INDIA THR. I.O NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU VS. MAN SINGH VERMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2025:

DATE: 28/02/2025

BENCH: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan

FACTS:

The present case arises from an appeal filed by the Union of India through the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which had directed the Director of NCB, New Delhi, to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the respondent, Man Singh Verma, for alleged wrongful confinement. The respondent was arrested on January 6, 2023, following the seizure of 1280 grams of brown powder, suspected to be heroin, from his possession during a joint NCB operation. A case was registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and he was remanded to judicial custody. The NCB collected four samples (SO1, SD1, SO2, and SD2) from the seized substance, sending two (SO1 and SD1) to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL), New Delhi, for chemical examination.

On January 30, 2023, CRPL issued a report confirming that the samples tested negative for heroin or any narcotic substance. Despite this, the Investigating Officer sought permission to send the remaining two samples (SO2 and SD2) to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh, which also found no narcotic substances on April 5, 2023. Subsequently, on April 6, 2023, the NCB filed a closure report, and the respondent was released from District Jail, Barabanki, on April 10, 2023. However, the High Court continued to adjudicate the bail application, ruling that the respondent had been wrongfully confined for four months and ordering compensation. NCB's Modification Application and Application for Grant of Exemption were both rejected by the High Court, prompting the present appeal.

ISSUES:

The case raised issue of whether the grant of compensation of Rs. 500000 was with the authority of law or not.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India through the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and set aside the High Court’s order directing the payment of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the respondent, Man Singh Verma, for wrongful confinement. The Court ruled that such an order was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court while adjudicating a bail application. However, the Court clarified that this judgment does not preclude the respondent from seeking appropriate remedies under the law for any alleged violation of his rights.

The Court reaffirmed that Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) limits a court’s jurisdiction in a bail application to either granting or refusing bail. Referring to precedents such as RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR Sha, Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat, and State v. M. Murugesan, the Court observed that courts must not overstep their jurisdiction in bail proceedings by issuing broader directions unrelated to securing the accused’s liberty. In this case, since the respondent had already been released by the District Court, the High Court should have dismissed the bail application as infructuous instead of delving into wrongful confinement or compensation.

Furthermore, while recognizing the right to compensation for unlawful detention as established in Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court emphasized that such relief must be sought through appropriate legal remedies, such as proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution, rather than through a bail application. The Court concluded that the High Court lacked the legal authority to grant compensation in a bail proceeding, rendering its order unsustainable.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the limited jurisdiction of courts while adjudicating bail applications under Section 439 CrPC. By setting aside the High Court’s order directing compensation, the Court reaffirmed the principle that bail proceedings are meant solely for assessing whether an accused should be granted or denied bail, not for adjudicating broader issues such as wrongful confinement or compensation. The ruling aligns with past judicial precedents that have cautioned against courts overstepping their authority in bail matters. In this case, the High Court’s decision to continue adjudicating a bail application despite the respondent’s release was deemed improper, as the bail petition had already become infructuous. Instead of addressing wrongful detention, the High Court should have dismissed the matter once the respondent was released, as the power under Section 439 does not extend to determining compensation claims.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the proper legal avenues for seeking compensation for wrongful confinement. The Court acknowledged that individuals have a fundamental right to protection against unlawful detention, as recognized in cases like Rudal Sah, D.K. Basu, and Nilabati Behera. However, it emphasized that such claims must be pursued through constitutional remedies under Article 32 or Article 226 rather than through bail proceedings. By making this distinction, the Court reinforced the necessity of following procedural propriety in seeking redressal for fundamental rights violations. This decision serves as a crucial precedent in ensuring that courts adhere to their prescribed jurisdiction, preventing judicial overreach in bail matters while safeguarding the avenues available for individuals to claim compensation through appropriate legal mechanisms.