“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,” the Bench stated.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts and Sessions Courts do not have the authority to order compensation while granting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan clarified that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is strictly limited to deciding whether bail should be granted or refused during a trial. It does not extend to awarding compensation to an accused person.
“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,” the Bench stated.
The Supreme Court set aside an order by the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to pay Rs. 5 lakh as compensation to an accused person who was wrongfully detained in a drug case.
Background
The case arose from a raid conducted by the NCB on January 6, 2023. During the operation, officers seized 1,280 grams of brown powder, which was suspected to be heroin. The accused were arrested and charged under Sections 8(C), 21, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and were sent to judicial custody.
On January 30, 2023, forensic tests conducted by the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL) in New Delhi confirmed that the seized substance did not contain heroin or any other narcotic drug. Despite this, the NCB requested permission to send another sample to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in Chandigarh for re-testing, which was allowed by the special court.
On April 5, 2023, the CFSL report also confirmed that there were no narcotic substances in the seized material. Following this, the NCB filed a closure report, and the accused were released from custody on April 10, 2023.
Even though the accused had already been released, the Allahabad High Court continued to hear their pending bail application. Later, the High Court ordered the NCB to pay Rs.5 lakh in compensation, stating that the accused had been wrongfully detained for four months despite clear forensic reports proving their innocence.
The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Satya Darshi Sanjay, challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order before the Supreme Court. The ASG argued that compensation cannot be granted in bail proceedings.
The Supreme Court agreed with this argument and ruled that bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC cannot include awarding compensation. The Court noted that in past cases where compensation was granted, those orders were passed under writ jurisdiction (Article 32 of the Constitution), not under bail proceedings.
The Supreme Court also referred to previous judgments to emphasize that the jurisdiction of bail hearings is only to decide on bail and should not go beyond that.
“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,” the Court reiterated.
The Court also referred to Section 69 of the NDPS Act, which grants immunity to NCB officers for actions taken in good faith. It stated that unless there is clear proof of bad intention (malafide action), NCB officials cannot be held personally liable.
Case Title: Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Man Singh Verma
