Courts Cannot Grant Compensation To Accused For Wrongful Confinement In Bail Applications Under S.439 CrPC : Supreme Court
Introduction
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a court does not have the power to grant compensation to an accused for wrongful confinement while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This significant ruling has far-reaching implications for prisoners and lawyers alike, as it clarifies the scope of a court’s jurisdiction in dealing with bail applications and the limits of compensation that can be awarded in such cases.
Background
In April 2023, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) seized about 1,280 grams of brown powder allegedly from an accused individual. However, subsequent forensic tests did not reveal the presence of any narcotic substance in the samples. Based on the forensic results, the NCB filed a closure report in the case and released the accused. Despite the release, the Allahabad High Court continued to adjudicate the earlier bail application filed by the accused to determine the issue of compensation.
The High Court’s Order
By its order passed in May 2024, the High Court directed the Director of Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, to pay a sum of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as compensation to the respondent for the alleged wrongful confinement. This order was challenged by the NCB, and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s direction.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
In its ruling, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing the direction. The Court noted that the bail application had become infructuous once the accused was released after the filing of the closure report. Hence, the High Court ought to have closed the matter and not delved into the aspects of impermissibility of re-testing and/or wrongful confinement.
Relevant Precedents
The Supreme Court also examined precedents such as Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, where compensation was awarded for illegal confinement. However, the Court distinguished these cases, noting that those judgments were passed in the context of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the avenues to seek recourse to law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per law.
The Court’s Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court has held that a court cannot grant compensation to an accused for wrongful confinement while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed that the jurisdiction conferred upon a court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial, and the power to award compensation is not part of that jurisdiction.
Case Details
- Case: Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Man Singh Verma
- Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 265
- Judgement: [2025] Mad. SC 265
Important Takeaways
- A court cannot grant compensation to an accused for wrongful confinement while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The jurisdiction conferred upon a court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial.
- The power to award compensation is not part of that jurisdiction.
- The High Court should close a bail application once the accused is released after the filing of the closure report and not continue to adjudicate the issue of compensation.
By its ruling, the Supreme Court has clarity on the scope of a court’s jurisdiction in dealing with bail applications and the limits of compensation that can be awarded in such cases. This landmark judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that the courts do not overstep their jurisdiction and respect the limits of their power.
Live News Daily is a trusted name in the digital news space, delivering accurate, timely, and in-depth reporting on a wide range of topics.