28 February 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a controversial order by the Allahabad High Court, which directed the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for the alleged wrongful confinement of an individual in a drug-related case. The apex court clarified that the jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertains to bail, does not extend to awarding compensation.

The case of Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v/s Man Singh Verma., stemmed from a joint operation in January 2023, where the NCB seized 1280 grams of suspected heroin from Man Singh Verma. Subsequently, Verma was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Initial laboratory tests on samples of the seized substance came back negative for narcotics. Despite this, the NCB proceeded to send a second set of samples for testing, which also yielded negative results. Consequently, Verma was released after the NCB filed a closure report.

However, during the adjudication of Verma's bail application, which had become infructuous due to his release, the Allahabad High Court directed the NCB to pay compensation, citing wrongful confinement. The Union of India, through the NCB, challenged this order, arguing that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, emphasized that the power conferred under Section 439 CrPC is strictly limited to granting or refusing bail. The court reiterated that delving into a detailed examination of evidence or awarding compensation falls outside the purview of this section. Several precedents were cited, highlighting that bail proceedings should focus solely on securing or restricting the liberty of the accused.

"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 Supreme Court stated. It pointed out that the High Court's decision to award compensation, especially after the bail application had become infructuous, was legally unsound.

The court also addressed the argument regarding the protection afforded to NCB officers under Section 69 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which safeguards actions taken in good faith. While refraining from commenting on the specifics of this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the provision's existence.

Furthermore, the apex court distinguished between remedies available under Article 32 of the Constitution, which deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights, and those under Section 439 CrPC. It clarified that while compensation can be awarded for the violation of fundamental rights, as established in precedents like Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, such principles do not automatically extend to bail proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside the High Court's order regarding compensation. However, the court clarified that its observations should not preclude any other legal remedy that might be available to the respondent. The decision serves as a crucial reminder of the defined boundaries of jurisdiction in bail proceedings, ensuring that courts remain within their legal mandate.

Section 439., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 69, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - 1985  

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985