High Courts cannot grant compensation in bail matters under Section 439 CrPC: Supreme Court

A High Court or sessions court while granting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not have powers to order compensation to the accused, the Supreme Court reiterated on Friday [Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Man Singh Verma].A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan held that bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial and does not extend to awarding compensation."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 Bench held.Hence, it quashed an Allahabad High Court order directing the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to an accused who was wrongfully detained in a drug case.The case stemmed from a January 6, 2023 operation by the NCB, during which 1,280 grams of brown powder, allegedly heroin, was seized from the accused persons. They were booked under Sections 8(C), 21, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and remanded to judicial custody.The NCB initially sent samples for forensic testing and on January 30, 2023, the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL) at New Delhi reported that the sample tested negative for heroin and other narcotic substances. Despite this, the NCB sought permission to send a second set of samples to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) at Chandigarh for further examination. The request was allowed by the special court..On April 5, 2023, the CFSL report also confirmed that the samples contained no narcotic substances. The NCB then filed a closure report and the accused persons were released from custody on April 10, 2023.Despite the release, the Allahabad High Court continued hearing the pending bail application of the accused. It ultimately ordered the NCB Director to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation, citing that the accused had been wrongfully confined for four months despite the negative test results..The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Satya Darshi Sanjay, challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that compensation could not be awarded in a bail hearing..Amicus Curiae Pijush K Roy pointed out that once the first forensic report ruled out the presence of narcotics, the authorities should have closed the case immediately instead of proceeding with a second test. He argued that re-testing of the same sample is impermissible unless justified by exceptional circumstances, which was not the case here..The Amicus further relied on previous Supreme Court rulings where compensation was awarded for wrongful confinement. However, the Supreme Court clarified that those rulings were delivered in writ jurisdictions under Article 32 and not in bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC.The Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is strictly limited to granting or refusing bail and does not empower a High Court to order compensation. The Bench relied on precedents to reaffirm that bail proceedings cannot extend beyond issues concerning personal liberty.The Court also clarified that Section 69 of the NDPS Act grants immunity to NCB officers for actions taken in good faith and clear malafide intention needs to be proved to lose the said immunity. .While setting aside the compensation order, the Court emphasised that while wrongful confinement may warrant compensation in appropriate cases, bail hearings are certainly not the forum for such relief..[Read Judgment]