Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has set aside the directive of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which ordered the Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), New Delhi, to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for alleged wrongful confinement. The matter arose from an appeal filed by the NCB challenging the High Court's order, which was passed while adjudicating a bail application.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which pertains solely to granting or denying bail. The Supreme Court stated 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 scope of consideration under this section pertains only to securing or restricting the liberty of the person in question."

The case stemmed from a joint operation conducted by the NCB, in which 1280 grams of brown powder, allegedly heroin, was recovered from the possession of Man Singh Verma and another individual, Aman Singh. Consequently, Criminal Case No. 02/2023 was registered against Verma under Sections 8(C), 21, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), on January 6, 2023, leading to his remand in judicial custody.

On the same day, the NCB prepared an arrest memo and drew four samples—SO1, SD1, SO2, and SD2—from the recovered substance. Two samples, SO1 and SD1, were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL), New Delhi, for chemical analysis. While awaiting the results, Verma filed Bail Application No. 251/2023 before the Special Judge, NDPS, Barabanki, which was rejected on January 24, 2023. He then approached the High Court through Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2812 of 2023.

On January 30, 2023, CRPL issued its report stating that the tested sample was negative for heroin and other narcotic substances. The Investigating Officer (IO) subsequently sought permission from the Special Court to send the second set of samples, SO2 and SD2, to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh, which was granted. The CFSL report, received on April 5, 2023, confirmed that the second set of samples also tested negative for narcotic substances.

Following the CFSL report, the NCB filed a closure report before the Special Judge, NDPS, on April 6, 2023. Verma was released from District Jail, Barabanki, on April 10, 2023, pursuant to an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge. Despite his release, the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the pending bail application. In its order dated May 22, 2024, it observed that Verma had been wrongfully confined for four months despite the negative laboratory reports and directed the Director, NCB, to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation within two months and file a compliance affidavit.

Aggrieved by the order, the NCB filed a modification application before the High Court, seeking a waiver of the compensation. The High Court rejected the application on July 16, 2024, stating that it was barred under Section 362 CrPC, which prohibits courts from altering final judgments except in cases of clerical or arithmetic errors. Additionally, an application seeking exemption from payment of compensation was filed by Surendra Kumar, Junior Intelligence Officer, NCB. The High Court dismissed this application on September 9, 2024, stating that the compensation order had not been challenged before a higher court.

Before the Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay argued that the High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC. He submitted that the officers of the NCB acted in good faith based on credible intelligence and the initial test results, and that Section 69 of the NDPS Act provides protection to officers for acts done in good faith.

The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides and also considered submissions from Amicus Curiae Pijush K. Roy, who was appointed to assist the court in the matter. The respondent, despite service of notice, did not enter an appearance.

The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC to grant compensation in a bail proceeding. The bench cited previous judgments to examine the scope of the High Court’s powers under this provision.

Referring to Reserve Bank of India v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha (2010) 15 SCC 85, the court noted that "far-reaching consequences of the directions of the High Court are in a way beyond the scope of an application for bail filed by an accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

The court also referred to Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522, where it was held that "by ordering the abovementioned tests and venturing into the reports of the same with meticulous details, the High Court has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini-trial indeed."

In State v. M. Murugesan (2020) 15 SCC 251, the court had observed that "The jurisdiction of the court under Section 439 of the Code is limited to grant or not to grant bail pending trial."

The Supreme Court noted that since the bail application had become infructuous upon Verma’s release, no occasion arose for the High Court to delve into the aspects of re-testing and alleged wrongful confinement. The court stated, "The straightforward course of action that ought to have been adopted, therefore, was that the bail application would have been dismissed as such. No occasion arose for the Court to pass an order delving into the aspects of impermissibility of re-testing and/or wrongful confinement."

The Supreme Court set aside the compensation order, stating that "Grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 was without the authority of law. The order of the High Court, therefore, to this extent has to be set aside. Ordered accordingly."

However, the court stated that its observations were limited to the correctness of the compensation order in the bail adjudication and would not preclude Verma from seeking any other remedy available under the law. It stated, "The observations made hereinabove should not be taken to preclude any remedy that may be available to the respondent as per law. Hence, our observations are limited only to the correctness of the grant of compensation in the adjudication of a bail application."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal partly and recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae Pijush K. Roy. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Union of India Through Investigating Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 292
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]