9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CrPC. In State v. M. Murugesan [2020 (1) TMI 1719 - SUPREME COURT], 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. 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 retesting and/or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Crimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 (1983) 4 SCC 141; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746; and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 - 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. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- 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 : "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 Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
