Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Union Of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau – Appellant
Versus
Man Singh Verma – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2025
Decided On : 28-02-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Bail application – Scope of granting compensation for wrongful confinement – jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending – Sphere of consideration, when exercising power under this Section pertains only to securing or restricting liberty of person in question – In instant case, application for bail filed before High Court had become infructuous since District Court had already released respondent – Straightforward course of action that ought to have been adopted was that bail application would have been dismissed as such – No occasion arose for Court to pass an order delving into aspects of impermissibility of re-testing and/or wrongful confinement – Not only was same outside bounds but it is erroneous on a further count that since application was infructuous, exercise of jurisdiction was entirely unjustified and contrary to law – Grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was without authority of law – Order of High Court set aside. (Paras 6, 7 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from impugned order dated 22nd May, 2024 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2812 of 2023, wherein High Court directed Director of Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to respondent for the alleged wrongful confinement. Aggrieved by said direction, Union of India through NCB has preferred present appeal. Sole issue, which arises for consideration of this Court, is whether contours of Section 439 CrPC permit the grant of compensation by High Court to the appellant.
Findings of Court:
Observations made herein should not be taken to preclude any remedy that may be available to respondent as per law. Hence, our observations are limited only to correctness of grant of compensation in the adjudication of a bail application.
Result : Appeal allowed partly.
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Karol, J.)
1. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2812 of 2023, wherein the High Court directed the Director of Narcotics Control Bureau1[For short ‘NCB’], New Delhi, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as compensation to the respondent for the alleged wrongful confinement. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Union of India through NCB has preferred the present appeal.
2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :-
2.1. In a joint operation, the 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 No.02/2023 was registered against the respondent under Sections 8(C), 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19852[Abbreviated as ‘NDPS’] on 6th January, 2023, consequently, he was remanded to judicial custody.
2.2. NCB prepared an arrest memo on the same date and drew four samples – SO1, SD1, SO2 and SD2 from the recovered substance. Two of these samples (SO1 and SD1) were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL), New Delhi, for chemical examination.
2.3. While awaiting results from the laboratory, the respondent filed B.A.No.251/2023 before Special Judge, NDPS, Barabanki District, seeking bail. This application was rejected vide order dated 24th January, 2023. Consequently, the respondent approached the High Court by filing Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2812 of 2023.
2.4. On 30th January, 2023, CRPL issued its report stating that the sample tested negative for heroin and other narcotic substances. Following this, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) moved an application before the Special Court seeking permission to send a second set of samples (SO2 and SD2) to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh, for further examination. The same was allowed by the concerned Court.
2.5. On 5th April, 2023, the report received from CFSL, Chandigarh, found that the second set of samples also tested negative for any narcotic substance. As a result, on 6th April, 2023, NCB filed a closure report before the Special Judge, NDPS, pursuant to which, the respondent was released from District Jail, Barabanki on 10th April, 2023 under an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
2.6. Despite filing of the closure report and 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 and, therefore, directed the Director, NCB to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent within a period of two months and to file a compliance affidavit.
2.7. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a Modification Application before the High Court seeking waiver of the compensation, which was rejected vide order dated 16th July, 2024 on the ground that the application is barred under Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733[For short ‘CrPC’].
2.8. An Application for Grant of Exemption (for paying compensation) was also preferred by one Mr. Surendra Kumar, Junior Intelligence Officer, NCB, which was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 9th September, 2024, observing that the order granting compensation has not been challenged before a higher Court.
3. We have heard Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant, and Mr. Pijush K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter. The respondent, despite service, has not entered an appearance. We have also perused the material placed on record and the written submission filed by the Amicus Curiae. The main contentions raised, as can be understood from the record, have been recorded as under:
APPELLANTS:
Bail – Grant of compensation for alleged wrongful confinement in adjudication of a bail application is illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to liberty, especially in cases governed by stringent bail conditions under special acts like t....
Point of Law : The expression `reasonable grounds' has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that t....
Prolonged incarceration exceeding four years justifies bail under the NDPS Act, overriding statutory restrictions due to infringement of personal liberty under Article 21.
The compliance of provisions under Section 50 of NDPS Act, the recovered quantity of contraband, and the application of Section 37 of NDPS Act are crucial in determining bail applications under the N....
The mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is requisite during searches, and bail is only permissible if the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied.
The court ruled that a bail order confirmed by a higher court cannot be revoked by a co-ordinate bench without new evidence and proper procedures.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
