The
Supreme Court has ruled that courts do not have the authority to grant
compensation to an accused for wrongful confinement while exercising bail
jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
"The
jurisdiction conferred under Section 439 CrPC is strictly limited to granting
or refusing bail during trial," the Court stated.
A bench
comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan set aside an order of
the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the Narcotics Control
Bureau (NCB) to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to an accused for alleged
wrongful confinement in a drug case.
Background of the Case
In January
2023, the NCB seized approximately 1,280 grams of brown powder from
the accused. However, forensic tests did not detect any narcotic substance
in the samples. Based on these results, the NCB filed a closure report
in April 2023 and released the accused.
Despite
the accused’s release, the Allahabad High Court continued adjudicating his pending
bail application to determine whether he was entitled to compensation.
In May 2024, the High Court directed the Director of NCB, New Delhi,
to pay ₹5 lakh for alleged wrongful confinement.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme
Court, allowing NCB’s appeal, held that the High Court had exceeded its
jurisdiction by ordering compensation.
"Time
and again, courts overstepping their jurisdiction have been frowned upon. This
case is another such example," the Supreme Court remarked.
Once the closure
report was filed and the accused was released, the bail application became
infructuous. Thus, the High Court should have simply disposed of it. The
Court also noted that:
- There was no legal basis
for the High Court to examine wrongful confinement within the limited
scope of a bail application.
- The issue of compensation
should have been pursued through proper legal remedies, such as a writ
petition under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Past precedents, such as Rudal Sah v.
State of Bihar, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, and D.K.
Basu v. State of West Bengal, were decided in writ petitions,
not bail applications.
The Court
also accepted the Union of India’s submission that granting ₹5 lakh
compensation was beyond the authority of law under Section 439 CrPC.
Clarification on Remedies
While
setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court clarified that its
judgment does not prevent the accused from seeking compensation
through appropriate legal channels.
Case: Union of India other. I.O Narcotics Control
Bureau vs. Man Singh Verma
