RAMBALAKversusSTATE OF U.P.

                  [2026] 6 S.C.R. 446 : 2026 INSC 511

                                  Rambalak
                                      v.
                                 State of U.P.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2647 of 2026)
                                 19 May 2026
            [Sanjay Karol* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether under the power of s.483 of BNSS 2023,
       the Court could have issued directions to the trial court to issue
       summons u/ss.62 and 69 Cr.P.C. and also take coercive measures
       as against those persons who delay or impede proceedings.

                                   Headnotes†
       Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.483 – Special
       powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – High
       Court while exercising bail jurisdiction, undertaking exercise of
       issuing directions – Power of – High Court dismissed the second
       bail application in a case u/ss.419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
       and directed that the trial court to issue summons u/ss.62 and
       69 Cr.P.C. and also take coercive measures as against those
       persons who delay or impede proceedings – This Court passed
       an interim order releasing the appellant on bail and posted the
       matter for considering the issue of the power of the Court to
       issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction – Sustainability:
       Held: Impugned judgment in so far as it directs following what has
       been laid in the earlier bail orders, cannot be sustained and is set
       aside – However, in the interest of justice, the steps that have been
       taken by the State authorities to remain unaffected and continue
       to function independent of the orders in which they stood issued –
       State at liberty to modify the same to be in consonance with the
       prevalent laws of the land should the need so arise. [Para 8]

                                Case Law Cited
       State of U.P. v. Anurudh [2026] 1 SCR 770 : 2026 SCC OnLine
       SC 40 – relied on.
       Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P, CRMBA 16871 of
       2023; Jitendra v. State of U.P, CRMBA 9126 of 2023 – referred to.
* Author
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                               447

                                  Rambalak v. State of U.P.


                                        List of Acts
      Penal Code 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
      Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Constitution of India.

                                     List of Keywords
      Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail;
      High Court while exercising bail jurisdiction, undertaking an exercise
      of issuing directions; Bail application; Issuance of summons;
      Coercive measures; Delay or impede proceedings; Bail jurisdiction.

                                     Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      2647 of 2026
      From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2025 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 9700 of 2025

                                  Appearances for Parties
      Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Amicus Curiae.
      Advs. for the Appellant(s):
      Uday Prakash Yadav, Ms. Sneha Singh, Manu Shukla, Ashish
      Sharma, Ashish Kumar Pandey, Ramjee Pandey.
      Advs. for the Respondent(s):
      Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Abhay Nair, Sarthak
      Srivastava, Mayur Goyal.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                         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 by the High Court



1    Order dated 1st April 2025
448                                                             [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       of Judicature at Allahabad2 in a case arising out of Case Crime
       No.175/2002 under Sections 419,420.467,468 and 471, Indian Penal
       Code 18603 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.4 and Jitendra v. State
       of U.P.5. 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



2    CRMBA 9700 of 2025
3    IPC
4    CRMBA 16871 of 2023
5    CRMBA 9126 of 2023
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                              449

                           Rambalak v. State of U.P.


                        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 General of Police
                 as well as Additional Chief Secretary (Home) shall
                 always bear in mind that that the efficiency of the
                 departmental system of accountability has a direct
                 bearing on the rule of law and credibility of the criminal
                 law process.”
450                                                           [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       The next order i.e., the order dated 20th December 2023 passed in
       Jitendra (supra), records the following directions to have been issued
       by the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh.
       Similar, were the directions issued by the Director General of Police of
       the concerned State. By the said order they have been ordered to be
       treated as directions of the Court. The same are extracted as under:
            “Similarly, the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed
            by the Director General of Police, Government of U.P.,
            Lucknow are extracted hereunder:
                  “5. That in respect of the directions given by Hon’ble
                  High Court from time to time and specially in ‘Bhanwar
                  Singh Case’ regarding timely execution of processes
                  issued by the learned trial courts the Principal
                  Secretary (Home), Govt. of U.P. vide Government
                  Order No. HC-100/6-PO-9-2023 Dated 14.10.2023
                  has issued the following directions:
                  i.     A Superintendent of Police rank officer has
                         been appointed as a Nodal officer for effective
                         execution of processes (summons/warrants/
                         notices) issued by learned trial courts, in every
                         police Commissionerate/District. In this respect
                         D.G. police circular dated 10.10.2023 will be
                         strictly complied by every Nodal officer.
                  ii.    All District Nodal officers will ensure the
                         strict compliance of DG police circular dated
                         10.10.2023.
                  iii.   All District Magistrates, Executive Magistrates,
                         District Incharge of police will ensure the
                         compliance of Government Order dated
                         23.11.2022 issued by Department of Home,
                         Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
                  iv.    Additional Director General (Prosecution)
                         is directed to issue a direction regarding
                         maintainability of witness register with ‘Court
                         Moharrir’, in which name and address, mobile
                         number, Aadhar number of every prosecution
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            451

                         Rambalak v. State of U.P.


                      wintess will be mentioned and a direction is also
                      issued to insert a column in the ‘Pairavi Register’
                      of concerned Pairokar of Police Station.
                v.    District Nodal officer will ensure that the Public
                      Prosecutor and concerned ‘Court Moharrir’ will
                      have access to process register of learned
                      trial courts so that police station/summon cell
                      process register could be matched. A direction
                      to learned trial courts to this effect, by Hon’ble
                      High Court, will be required.
                vi.   As per provision of Chapter 3 read with Rule
                      12 of General Rules Criminal as well as circular
                      order C.L. Number 42/98 dated 20.08.98 issued
                      by Hon’ble High Court the name, designation,
                      mobile number of police official who received
                      the court process will be clearly mentioned in
                      the column of process register of learned trial
                      court, so that his responsibility could be fixed.
                      A copy of Government Order No. HC-100/6-
                      PO-9-2023 Dated 14.10.2023 is annexed as
                      Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit.
                6. That in respect of the directions given by Hon’ble
                High Court from time to time and specially in ‘Bhawar
                Singh Case’ regarding timely execution of processes
                issued by the learned trial courts the deponent has
                issued the following directions.
                i.    A central register will be prepared for entering
                      processes received from different trial courts
                      in the office of the Nodal Officer and a Desk
                      will be established for sending the summon/
                      warrants for its execution daily processes will
                      be recorded in central register, policeman will
                      be deployed at the process desk.
                ii.   The service receipt received after service of
                      summons/warrants will be entered in the central
                      register by policeman posted at summon desk
452                                                 [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                 Supreme Court Reports


              and service report will be communicated to the
              concerned trial court.
       iii.   In compliance with the processes served, the
              details of the witnesses present and examined
              in trial courts will also be complied through
              summon/warrant desk and it will be reviewed
              from time to time at the competent officer
              level.
       iv.    Nodal officers will weekly examine the Summons/
              warrants execution register.
       v.     A monthly statement will be prepared in respect
              of the service of processes and same will be
              presented before Nodal officer for perusal. The
              Nodal officer will warn in writing to subordinate
              Officers and station in charge who are on laxity
              and after three consecutive months of laxity,
              so cause notice will be issued against the
              subordinate Officers and In-charge of Police
              Station.
       vi.    At District level Deputy Superintendent of
              Police/Additional Superintendent of Police
              and at Police Commissionerate level Assistant
              Police Commissioners will monitor the service
              of processes by the concerned police stations
              under their local jurisdiction and if any laxity
              will be found Supervisory officers will be
              accountable.
       vii.   Every Nodal Officer will be responsible for
              execution of service of processes (summons /
              warrants/ notices) under their local jurisdiction.
       viii. Work of Nodal Officers will be regularly assessed
             by Additional Director General of Police (Zonal)
             and Regional Inspector General of Police /
             Deputy Inspector General of Police in case of
             any laxity, he will inform the Headquarter of
             Director General of Police.
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                          453

                          Rambalak v. State of U.P.


                 ix.   As discussed above D.G. Circular no. 30/2023
                       dated 16.08.2023 has been partially changed
                       as Superintendent of Police will be a Nodal
                       Officer in place of Additional Superintendent
                       of Police. A copy of DG police circular dated
                       10.10.23 is annexed as Annexure No.3 to this
                       affidavit.”
                 The Government Orders and the directions issued
                 by the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of
                 U.P., Lucknow as well as Director General of Police,
                 Government of U.P., Lucknow extracted herein earlier
                 from now on shall be treated as orders of this Court
                 for purposes of implementation.
                 The Director General of Police, Government of U.P.,
                 Lucknow and other responsible officials shall ensure
                 strict compliance of the directions extracted earlier”
5.   In the impugned order, it is these directions that had been reiterated.
     The sole question which arises for consideration is whether under the
     power of Section 483 of BNSS 2023, the Court could have issued
     such directions. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant,
     the State and the amicus curiae, Ms. Akriti Chaubey. We have also
     perused the written submission of the parties.
6.   Section 483 BNSS reads as under:
           “483. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session
           regarding bail.
           (1)   A High Court or Court of Session may direct,-
                 (a)   that any person accused of an offence and in
                       custody be released on bail, and if the offence
                       is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of
                       section 480, may impose any condition which it
                       considers necessary for the purposes mentioned
                       in that sub-section;
                 (b)   that any condition imposed by a Magistrate
                       when releasing any person on bail be set aside
                       or modified:
454                                                           [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


                   Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session
                   shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused
                   of an offence which is triable exclusively by the
                   Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is
                   punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice
                   of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor
                   unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of
                   opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice:
                   Provided further that the High Court or the Court of
                   Session shall, before granting bail to a person who
                   is accused of an offence triable under section 65 or
                   sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
                   Sanhita, 2023, give notice of the application for bail
                   to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen
                   days from the date of receipt of the notice of such
                   application.
             (2)   The presence of the informant or any person
                   authorised by him shall be obligatory at the time
                   of hearing of the application for bail to the person
                   under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section 70 of
                   the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
             (3)   A High Court or Court of Session may direct that
                   any person who has been released on bail under
                   this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.”
7.     In a recent case viz., State of U.P. v. Anurudh6, also arising from a
       matter before the Allahabad High Court wherein, similar to the present
       case, far reaching directions had been issued by the Court under
       bail jurisdiction, mandating the scientific determination of the age
       of the victim in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual
       Offences Act 2012, in teeth of the scheme of the Juvenile Justice
       (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 which is also applicable
       to the former, this Court held the same to be impermissible in spite
       of reference to Article 21 and the assertion of the Court that it is
       not denuded of its constitutional power even while sitting in bail


6    2026 SCC OnLine SC 40
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                            455

                         Rambalak v. State of U.P.


     jurisdiction. The relevant discussion is reproduced as under as it
     squarely covers the issue in the present lis:
           “11.2. The upshot of the above discussion is that a Court›s
           jurisdiction, i.e., either the Court of Sessions or the High
           Court under Section 439CrPC is limited to adjudicating
           the question of the person concerned being released into
           society pending trial or whether they should continue to
           be incarcerated.
           11.3. It is unquestionable that High Court is a constitutional
           Court. However, in the instant case the error of jurisdiction
           by the High Court was in exercise of a statutory power
           and not under the Constitution. The powers arising
           from the Constitution and those flowing from a statute
           are distinct and separate. A constitutional power is the
           one which emanates directly from the text and spirit of
           the Constitution of India, the supreme and fundamental
           charter of governance, and inheres in those institutions
           or functionaries whose existence and competence are
           defined by it. Such powers are self-sustaining; they are
           not contingent upon any act of the Legislature, nor can
           they be abridged or extinguished except through a formal
           amendment under Article 368. For example, the President’s
           power to dissolve the Lok Sabha under Article 85(2)(b); the
           Governor’s authority to reserve a bill for the consideration
           of the President under Article 200, or the jurisdiction of
           the Supreme Court under Article 32 are all in exercise of
           constitutional power. These powers represent the apex of
           the legal hierarchy, deriving their legitimacy not from the
           will of the people as expressed by Parliament, but from
           the sovereignty of the Constitution itself.
           In contrast, a statutory power is derivative and conditional,
           drawing its vitality from a law duly enacted by the Parliament
           or a State Legislature. Such power exists only within the
           four corners of the enabling statute and is circumscribed by
           its language, purpose, and legislative intent. Illustratively,
           the powers conferred upon the Central Government under
           the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, to frame rules,
456                                                           [2026] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            issue directions, or regulate industrial operations are purely
            statutory in nature, as are the regulatory functions vested
            in the Securities and Exchange Board of India under the
            SEBI Act, 1992, or those entrusted to the Competition
            Commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002.
            The exercise of these powers must conform strictly to the
            parameters laid down by the statute; any transgression
            beyond its express or implied authority is rendered ultra
            vires and, therefore, void in the eyes of law.
            The essential distinction between these two species
            of power lies not merely in their origin but also in
            their constitutional status and susceptibility to control.
            Constitutional powers are sovereign, foundational, and
            insulated from the vicissitudes of ordinary legislation; they
            can neither be curtailed nor expanded by parliamentary
            enactment. Statutory powers, by contrast, are subordinate
            and mutable, existing at the pleasure of the Legislature,
            which may at any time amend, restrict, or repeal them
            through the ordinary legislative process. Judicial review,
            while applicable to both, assumes different contours in
            each case: in relation to constitutional powers, the Courts
            examine whether their exercise conforms to constitutional
            limitations including the protection of fundamental rights
            and the inviolable tenets of the basic structure whereas,
            in the case of statutory powers, the inquiry is confined
            to whether the authority has acted within the scope and
            purpose of the statute from which its power is drawn.
            The constitutional power cannot overshadow the statutory
            power, enlarging its scope beyond what has been
            envisaged by the statute. In other words, while both
            powers rest with the High Court, one power cannot usurp
            the ambit of another, unless otherwise permitted by law.”
8.     In view of this short discussion alone, we are of the considered view
       that the impugned judgment in so far as it directs following what has
       been laid in the earlier bail orders, cannot be sustained and has to
       be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However, in the interest of justice
       we direct that the steps that have been taken by the State authorities
[2026] 6 S.C.R.                                                        457

                            Rambalak v. State of U.P.


     shall remain unaffected and continue to function independent of the
     orders in which they stood issued. The State shall be at liberty to
     modify the same to be in consonance with the prevalent laws of the
     land should the need so arise. It is further clarified that even though
     we have set aside the directions on account of jurisdictional error,
     we have made no comment on the grant or denial of bail, as the
     case may be, in the earlier orders.
9.   The order dated 26th November 2025 is confirmed with the stipulation
     as mentioned in the said order.
     The appeal is allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
     disposed of.


     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain