Courts Cannot Grant Compensation To Accused For Wrongful Confinement In Bail Applications Under S.439 CrPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court 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.

"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 Court observed.

Holding so, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan set aside a direction passed by the Allahabad High Court asking the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to an accused for alleged wrongful confinement for about four months in a drug case.

In January 2023, the NCB seized about 1,280 grams of brown powder allegedly from the accused. However, the forensic tests did not show the presence of any narcotic substance in the samples. Based on the forensic results, the NCB filed a closure report in the case in April 2023 and released the accused. However, despite the release of the accused, the Allahabad High Court continued adjudicating the earlier bail application filed by the accused, to determine the issue of compensation. By its order passed in May 2024, 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.

Allowing the NCB's appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction while issuing the direction. "Time and again, the act of Courts overstepping the bounds of jurisdiction, has clearly been frowned upon. The instant case is another such example," the Court commented.

Once the accused was released after the filing fo the closure report, the bail application had become infructuous. Hence, the High Court ought to have closed it. "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."

Regarding the respondent's reference to 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, the Court said that those judgments were passed in writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

"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," the Court observed.

The Court accepted the submission of the Union of India that grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was without the authority of law

 However, the Court clarified that the observations in the judgment will not preclude the respondent from availing other remedies.

Case : Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Man Singh Verma

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 265

Click here to read the judgment