Case Name: UNION OF INDIA THR. I.O. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU vs. MAN SINGH VERMA
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2025
Date: February 28, 2025.
Quorum: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE MANMOHAN
FACTS OF THE CASE
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in a joint operation seized 1, 280 gm of brown powder from Man Singh Verma and another person in Sahibabad town under suspicion that it could be heroin. He was arrested and charged under Sections 8(C), 21, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and remanded in judicial custody. Forensic tests carried out later showed that the substance did not contain heroin or any other narcotic drugs. Based on these findings, the NCB filed a closure report and Verma was released. Meanwhile, Verma’s bail plea was still pending in the Allahabad High Court. The High Court decided the bail application and directed the Director, NCB to pay 5,00,000 as compensation for wrongful confinement. The Union of India contested this order in the Supreme Court on the ground that compensation cannot be awarded in bail proceedings.
ISSUES
- Whether the concerned High Court have jurisdiction to compensate in bail proceedings under section 439 Cr P.C?
- Whether bail proceedings can extended to awarding in monetary relief?
- Whether the NCB’s actions that resulted in Verma’s detention adhered to the due process requirements outlined in the NDPS Act.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Special Powers of High Courts or Court of Sessions with Regard to Bail, Section 439 of CrP.C.
2. The Constitution’s Article 21: Individual Liberty and the Right to Life.
3. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act of 1985, Sections 8(C), 21, and 29.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT CONTENTION:
- The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction when they awarded compensation in bail proceedings since bail cases are to be dealt with by trial Court under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.
- Compensation for wrongful detention must be claimed through independent legal proceedings, not during a bail hearing.
- The arrest was prima facie and routine investigation procedure. The NCB was acting within its statutory jurisdiction since the seizure at first seemed to be for narcotics. The fact that no narcotics were found was only established after forensic checks, and no foul play deserving compensation had occurred.
- Awarding compensation in bail cases establishes a legally incorrect precedent, widening the area of judicial intervention beyond its limits.
AMICUS CURIAE CONTENTION:
- Restraining Man Singh Verma back based on forensic reports establishing no narcotics was a violation of his constitutional right under Article 21.
- The state is liable for wrongful imprisonment, and victims of unjustified detention should be compensated.
- Courts have inherent jurisdiction to award compensation in rare cases to ensure justice and fundamental rights.
- The case emphasizes the necessity of stricter protection against arbitrary detentions under the NDPS Act.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could grant compensation in the bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC. The Supreme Court also observed that the hearings do not entail any other relief other than the granting or denial of bail. The Court pointed out that claims of wrongful detention should be filed through proper legal remedies, i.e., writ petition or civil suit, and not decided through bail proceedings. The Court observed that such wrongful detention claims must be made through proper legal remedies, viz., a writ petition or civil suit, and not determined in bail proceedings. The Court further intimated that since the NCB had itself filed a closure report, the application for bail had become infructuous and the High Court should not have heard matters not germane to it. The Court also held that awarding compensation in such cases would create a wrong precedent, enlarging the judicial process beyond legal boundaries. Declaring that the High Court had overstepped its bounds, the Supreme Court revoked the order of compensation while upholding that infringement of personal liberty should be dealt with through legal remedies.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court determined that the Allahabad High Court overstepped its authority by awarding ₹5, 00,000 in compensation during bail proceedings. It stated that Section 439 of the CrPC gives the High Court and Sessions Court the ability to grant or deny bail, but does not permit them to award compensation. The Court stressed that claims of wrongful confinement should be addressed through the proper legal channels, not during bail hearings. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that since the NCB had already submitted a closure report and Verma had been released, the bail application was no longer relevant. The High Court should have dismissed it rather than granting compensation. By overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial actions must adhere to the established legal framework and procedures.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court rightly sustained the principle that bail hearings are not to trespass upon their jurisdiction. While false detention is a serious encroachment on personal freedom, compensation needs to be obtained through adequate legal remedies like writ petitions or civil suits, not at the hands of a bail hearing. The High Court, albeit acting with a positive intent, went beyond its domain by awarding compensation in a misplaced manner. Judicial action has to stay within legal confines to uphold the integrity of the process. Redress for illegal detention is critical, but this has to be done through proper legal avenues to achieve justice that is fair and even-handed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY
