Summary
In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC that had become infructuous after the accused was released following a closure report, the High Court directed the Narcotics Control Bureau to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for wrongful confinement. The Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is confined to the grant or refusal of bail, that compensation for violation of fundamental rights has been awarded only in proceedings under Article 32, and that the award was without authority of law; the compensation direction was set aside while leaving the respondent's other remedies open.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, can award compensation to an accused for alleged wrongful confinement.
- Whether the High Court could adjudicate on re-testing of samples and wrongful confinement in a bail application that had become infructuous after the accused's release.
- Whether the principle of compensatory relief for violation of fundamental rights recognised under Article 32 extends to bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court set out the text of Section 439 and, following RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C, Sangitaben Datanta and State v. M. Murugesan, held that the power under it is limited to granting or refusing bail pending trial and ends when the bail application is decided; directions with far-reaching consequences, mini-trials or compensation awards are beyond its scope. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7, 10)
- Sections 8(c), 21 and 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The respondent was arrested and remanded under these provisions for alleged possession of 1280 grams of brown powder said to be heroin; both sets of samples tested negative and a closure report was filed. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.4, 2.5)
- Section 69, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The appellant invoked the protection for acts done in good faith; the Court expressly refrained from commenting on this issue, confining itself to the correctness of awarding compensation in a bail application. (¶¶ 3, 8, 10)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe Court noted that Rudal Sah, Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu, which recognised compensation for violation of fundamental rights, were decided under Article 32; such relief has been granted in that context, and the avenues for redress for undue restriction of liberty are limited to remedies available in law, none of which was availed here. (¶¶ 3, 9)
Held
- The jurisdiction of a court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to the grant or refusal of bail pending trial; the sphere of consideration pertains only to securing or restricting the liberty of the person concerned. A High Court dealing with a bail application must stay confined to the issues relevant to the matter before it; passing orders with far-reaching consequences, ordering scientific tests that convert bail adjudication into a mini-trial, or issuing directions after the bail application is decided are beyond that jurisdiction. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
- Where the accused had already been released by the District Court on a closure report, the bail application before the High Court had become infructuous and ought simply to have been dismissed as such. No occasion arose to delve into the impermissibility of re-testing samples or wrongful confinement; the exercise of jurisdiction was outside the bounds of Section 439 and, the application being infructuous, was entirely unjustified and contrary to law. (¶ 7)
- Compensation for violation of fundamental rights, as recognised in Rudal Sah, Nilabati Behera and D.K. Basu, was granted in the exercise of Article 32 jurisdiction. Undue restriction of liberty without the backing of procedure established by law is an affront to a person's rights, but the avenues for redress are limited to the remedies provided by law, none of which was availed in this case. The grant of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation in a bail application was therefore without authority of law and was set aside. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The Court's observations are confined to the correctness of granting compensation while adjudicating a bail application and do not preclude any remedy otherwise available to the respondent in law; no view was expressed on the protection claimed under Section 69 of the NDPS Act. (¶¶ 8, 10)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. The High Court's direction to the Director, NCB to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation set aside; the respondent's remedies otherwise available in law left open. Pending applications disposed of.