UNION OF INDIA THR. I.O. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusMAN SINGH VERMA

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1534 : 2025 INSC 292

           Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau
                                    v.
                           Man Singh Verma
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2025)
                                28 February 2025
                  [Sanjay Karol* and Manmohan, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether the contours of s.439 CrPC permit the grant
       of compensation by the High Court to the appellant for alleged
       wrongful confinement for four months in a matter of possession
       of narcotic substances.

                                     Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Special powers
       of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – Scope
       of – Adjudication of bail application – High Court directed
       the Director of Narcotics Control Bureau to pay ₹5 lakh
       as compensation to the appellant for alleged wrongful
       confinement for four months in a matter of possession of
       narcotic substances – Correctness:
       Held: Grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was
       without the authority of law – Jurisdiction conferred upon a Court
       u/s.439 is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial – Application
       for bail filed before the High Court had become infructuous since the
       District Court had already released the respondent – Straightforward
       course of action that ought to have been adopted, 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 retesting and/or wrongful confinement – Not only
       was the same outside the bounds, but it is erroneous on a further
       count that since the application was infructuous, the exercise of
       jurisdiction was entirely unjustified and contrary to law – Undue
       restriction of liberty, without the backing of procedures established
       by law is unquestionably an affront to a person’s rights but the
       avenues to seek recourse of law in connection therewith are limited
       to remedies as per law, however, none was availed in the instant
       facts – Thus, order of the High Court, to the extent of granting
       compensation, is set aside. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10]
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          1535

 Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma


                             Case Law Cited
     Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528;
     Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics [2013] 2 SCR 899 :
     (2013) 2 SCC 590; Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar [1983] 3 SCR 508 :
     (1983) 4 SCC 141; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [1993] 2
     SCR 581 : (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
     [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 284 : (1997) 1 SCC 416; RBI v. Cooperative
     Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha [2010] 9 SCR 1107 : (2010) 15 SCC
     85; Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat (2019)
     14 SCC 522; State v. M. Murugesan [2020] 2 SCR 553: (2020)
     15 SCC 251 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
     Substances Act, 1985.

                            List of Keywords
     Wrongful confinement for four months; Possession of narcotic
     substances; Bail; Adjudication of bail application; Payment of
     compensation for wrongful confinement; Grant or refusal of bail
     pending trial; Wrongful confinement; Undue restriction of liberty.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     77 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2024 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRMBA No. 2812
     of 2023

                        Appearances for Parties
     Pijush K. Roy, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae.
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G., Rajat Nair, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms.
     Priyanka Terdal, Santosh Kumar, Digvijay Dam, Arvind Kumar
     Sharma.
     Adv. for the Respondent:
     Ms. Kakali Roy.
1536                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    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, 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 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 24 th January, 2023. Consequently, the respondent
           approached the High Court by filing Crl. Misc. Bail Application
           No.2812 of 2023.



1    For short ‘NCB’
2    Abbreviated as ‘NDPS’
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          1537

    Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma


       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.
       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


3     For short ‘CrPC’
1538                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports



     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:
     (i)    The High Court, while exercising its power under Section
            439 CrPC, went beyond its jurisdiction by doing a detailed
            examination of evidence and awarding compensation for alleged
            wrongful detention. Reliance was placed on Kalyan Chandra
            Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,4 wherein it was observed that at
            the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence
            and elaborate documentation of the merits of a case need not
            be undertaken.
     (ii)   The officers of NCB acted in bonafide manner on credible
            intelligence and initial test results. Section 69 of the NDPS Act
            offers protection to officers for acts done in good faith, thus
            prohibiting prosecution as well as imposition of fine without
            proof of malafides.
     (iii) It was further submitted that the respondent had been released
           from custody on 10th April, 2023, almost a year before the High
           Court passed the impugned order, rendering the bail application
           infructuous. Consequently, the award of compensation was
           unwarranted.

     AMICUS CURIAE:
     (i)    It was submitted that re-testing the second sample of the same
            alleged contraband, which had already been tested negative in
            its previous sample sent for analysis, was impermissible under
            the NDPS Act and the guidelines laid down in Thana Singh
            v. Central Bureau of Narcotics.5 In the present case, the
            concerned authority should have filed an application for closure
            before the Special Judge upon receiving the first negative report



4   (2004) 7 SCC 528
5   (2013) 2 SCC 590
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            1539

    Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma



              from CRPL on 30th January, 2023. However, instead of filing
              such an application, the authority proceeded with re-testing
              of second sample, which was illegal and led to an unjustified
              extension of the respondent’s custody.
       (ii)   It was urged that the principle of awarding compensatory relief
              for the violation of fundamental rights by public officials as
              recognized in Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar;6 Nilabati Behera v.
              State of Orissa;7 and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal8 – all
              adjudicated under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, should
              be extended to bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC.
       (iii) Protection under Section 69 NDPS Act to the authorities is not
             absolute. The re-testing of second sample was done due to
             malice, as no exceptional circumstances as per Thana Singh
             (supra) were present to justify the second examination by a
             laboratory.
4.     The sole issue, which arises for consideration of this Court, is whether
       the contours of Section 439 CrPC permit the grant of compensation
       by the High Court to the appellant.
5.     To answer this issue at hand, it is imperative for this Court to discuss
       the scope of jurisdiction of the Court while exercising its power under
       Section 439 CrPC. Section 439 of CrPC reads as:
              “439. 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 437, 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:
              Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session


6     (1983) 4 SCC 141
7     (1993) 2 SCC 746
8     (1997) 1 SCC 416
1540                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


             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
             184 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 sub-section (3) of section 376 or section
             376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian
             Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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.
             (1A) 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 sub-section
             (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or
             section DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
             (2) 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.”
6.    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. In the following decisions, this Court has time and
      again held that the sphere of consideration, when exercising power
      under this Section pertains only to securing or restricting liberty of
      the person in question.
      6.1. In RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha9, this
           Court held that the High Court order, directing the Cooperative
           Bank to distribute the money recovered from the accused, to
           persons who had made deposits less than Rs.10,000/- as and
           when such recoveries are made, passed in a Bail Application
           had far-reaching consequences and was beyond the scope of
           Section 439 CrPC. The Court held as under :


9    (2010) 15 SCC 85
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                               1541

 Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma


                    “6. We are of the opinion that the 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 and the High Court,
                    as much as anyone else, must stay confined to the
                    issues relevant to the matter before it. It was thus not
                    open to the High Court to pass orders which could
                    affect the working of banks all over the country. It
                    has been pointed out by Mr Basava Prabhu S. Patil,
                    the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that it
                    is for this reason that Reserve Bank of India had
                    filed this appeal.”
      6.2. This Court in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of
           Gujarat10, while examining a case wherein the High Court had
           ordered the accused as well as the relatives of the victim to
           undergo scientific tests, viz., lie detector, brain mapping and
           narco-analysis, held that, by ordering such tests the High Court
           has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini-
           trial and was in contravention of the first principles of criminal
           law jurisprudence and the statutory requirements. The Court
           held as under:
                    “6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is
                    surprising to note the present approach adopted by
                    the High Court while considering the bail application.
                    The High Court ordering the abovementioned tests
                    is not only in contravention to the first principles of
                    criminal law jurisprudence but also violates statutory
                    requirements. While adjudicating a bail application,
                    Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
                    is the guiding principle wherein the court takes into
                    consideration, inter alia, the gravity of the crime, the
                    character of the evidence, position and status of the
                    accused with reference to the victim and witnesses,
                    the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
                    repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering


10   (2019) 14 SCC 522
1542                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


                    with the witnesses and obstructing the course of
                    justice and such other grounds. Each criminal case
                    presents its own peculiar factual matrix, and therefore,
                    certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have
                    to be taken into account by the court. However, the
                    court has to only opine as to whether there is prima
                    facie case against the accused. The court must not
                    undertake meticulous examination of the evidence
                    collected by the police, or rather order specific tests
                    as done in the present case.
                    7. In the instant case, 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. This assumption of function of a trial court
                    by the High Court is deprecated.”
      6.3. In State v. M. Murugesan11, this Court again reiterated that
           the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to grant or refusal to grant
           bail, pending trial. In this case, the High Court, while taking a
           decision on bail application, had retained the file and directed
           the State to form a committee and seek its recommendations on
           the reformation and rehabilitation of convict/accused persons.
           The Court held that while ordering such directions the High
           Court has committed grave illegality and held that the jurisdiction
           under Section 439 CrPC ends when the bail application is finally
           decided. The Court held as under :-
                    “11. We find that the learned Single Judge [M.
                    Murugesan v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 12414]
                    has collated data from the State and made it part of
                    the order after the decision [M. Murugesan v. State,
                    Criminal Original Petition No. 1618 of 2019, order
                    dated 18-2-2019 (Mad)] of the bail application, as if
                    the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to pass any
                    order under the guise of improving the criminal justice
                    system in the State. The jurisdiction of the court under
                    Section 439 of the Code is limited to grant or not to


11   (2020) 15 SCC 251
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        1543

 Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma


                grant bail pending trial. Even though the object of
                the Hon’ble Judge was laudable but the jurisdiction
                exercised was clearly erroneous. The effort made
                by the Hon’ble Judge may be academically proper
                to be presented at an appropriate forum but such
                directions could not be issued under the colour of
                office of the court.”
7.   Time and again, the act of Courts overstepping the bounds of
     jurisdiction, has clearly been frowned upon. The instant case is another
     such example. It is undisputed that the application for bail filed before
     the High Court had become infructuous since the District Court had
     already released the respondent herein. 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. Not only was the same
     outside the bounds, as discussed above, but it is erroneous on a
     further count that since the application was infructuous, the exercise
     of jurisdiction was entirely unjustified and contrary to law.
8.   Regarding the submission pertaining to Section 69 of the NDPS Act,
     it is submitted that the actions of the authorities are protected from
     prosecution, in the absence of malafide intention. We refrain from
     making any comment on this issue for reasons that shall come to
     light later in this judgment.
9.   The learned Amicus Curiae in his submissions has referred to
     judgments of this Court in Rudal Sah (supra), D.K. Basu (supra)
     and Nilabati Behera (supra). As has already been noticed, these
     judgments were rendered by this Court under Article 32 jurisdiction,
     which is a remedy available to any person whose fundamental
     rights have been violated. So, whereas the Court has indeed
     held permissibility of grant of compensation, it has so done in the
     context of violation of fundamental rights. The undue restriction of
     liberty, i.e., without the backing of procedures established by law is
     unquestionably an affront to a person’s rights but the avenues to
     seek recourse of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies
     as per law. However, none was availed in the present facts.
10. As such, we accept the submission of the Union of India that grant of
    compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was without the authority
1544                                                     [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     of law. The order of the High Court, therefore, to this extent has to
     be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is allowed partly. 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.
11. We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered
    by Mr. Pijush K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel, Amicus Curiae.
     Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain