A court exercising bail jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating the release of an accused person and lacks the legal authority to issue wide-ranging administrative directions involving executive departmental reforms, as statutory powers cannot transcend the specific parameters defined by the enabling legislation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. On first blush, this appeal at the instance of the accused was directed against the rejection of his second bail application¹[Order dated 1st April 2025] by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad²[CRMBA 9700 of 2025] in a case arising out of Case Crime No.175/2002 under Sections 419,420.467,468 and 471, Indian Penal Code 1860³[IPC] at PS Hamirpur, presents that limited issue, but it is not so. While dismissing the bail application, the Court directed that the Trial Court should issue summons under Section 62 and 69 Cr.P.C. and also take coercive measures as against those persons who delay or impede proceedings. This issue of delay in serving summons for taking coercive measures apparently was considered by the court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P., CRMBA 16871 of 2023 and Jitendra v. State of U.P. , CRMBA 9126 of 2023. It was directed that the Trial Court was under an obligation to follow the abovesaid judgment as also the directions issued by the Director General of Police and Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, in compliance thereof.

3. Vide interim order dated 26th November 2025 this Court had released the appellant on bail and then posted the matter for consideration on a subsequent date regarding issue of the power of the Court to issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction.

4. Since the directions issued by the Court are the mainstay of the appeal, let us discuss the same in detail. In terms of order dated 14th September 2023, in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9126 of 2023 the learned Single Judge observed that the criminal justice system within the State suffered from great difficulties in delay of execution of summons and the production of witnesses. As such, he called for affidavits of the concerned authorities in the following terms:

“In this wake, this Court is forced to call for the personal affidavits of Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as well as Director General of Police, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow on the following issues:

I. The current system of departmental accountability of officials nominated by statutes for service of summons and execution of coercive measures issued by the trial courts has failed.

II. To create an efficacious departmental accountability system where officers nominated by the statute (Cr.P.C. as well as Government Orders from time to time) are held accountable for failures to serve summons and execute coercive measures and the inability to compel appearance of witnesses despite orders of the Court. The aforesaid officers nominated by the statute and the government order for the aforesaid purpose are Executive Magistrate, Superintendent of Police of the districts, Commissioner of Police, as well as Inspector General of Police.

III. The system of accountability in the department will become efficacious only if the performance of officers is also judged on the yardsticks of their ability to serve summons, execute coercive measures issued by the court and compel appearance of witnesses on the dates fixed before the learned trial court.

IV. Penalty for departmental action/penalty for failure to comply with the orders of the Court if the explanation for the same is not satisfactory is also liable to be included if the statutory schemes of summons and enforcement of coercive measures have to be implemented as per law.

IV. The Director General of Police as well as Additional Chief Secretary (Home) shall also consider the judgment rendered by this Court in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) and the report of the JTRI while filing their affidavits. The Director Gen