Summary
While rejecting a second bail application, the Allahabad High Court had directed trial courts and State authorities to follow earlier bail orders that adopted government and police directions on serving summons and coercive processes. The Supreme Court set aside those directions, holding that a court exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 483 BNSS can only decide whether the accused should be released or stay in custody pending trial and cannot issue such wider systemic directions.
Issues
- Whether a High Court, exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, can issue general directions to trial courts and State authorities about serving summons, coercive processes and accountability of officials.
- Whether the steps already taken by the State under those directions should survive once the directions are set aside.
Provisions considered
- Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The Court reproduced the section, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to direct release on bail with conditions, set aside or modify a Magistrate's bail conditions, and direct re-arrest. It held that this statutory power does not extend to issuing directions on the service of summons and accountability of police and executive officials, so the directions issued in bail proceedings were without jurisdiction. (¶¶ 5, 6, 8)
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on State of U.P. v. Anurudh, the Court reiterated that bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC (the predecessor provision) is limited to whether the accused should be released pending trial or continue in custody. (¶ 7)
Held
- The jurisdiction of a High Court or Court of Session in bail matters is statutory and is confined to deciding whether the accused should be released pending trial or should remain incarcerated. Directions of a general administrative nature, such as requiring trial courts and police authorities to follow earlier bail orders on service of summons and coercive measures, fall outside that jurisdiction. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- Following State of U.P. v. Anurudh, a High Court's status as a constitutional court does not enlarge a statutory power it is exercising; constitutional power cannot be used to stretch a statutory jurisdiction beyond what the statute provides. (¶ 7)
- Although the directions were set aside for jurisdictional error, the measures already put in place by the State authorities were to continue independently of the orders under which they were issued, with liberty to the State to modify them in line with the law. The Court expressed no view on the grant or refusal of bail in the earlier orders. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; the directions in the impugned order requiring compliance with earlier bail orders set aside; steps taken by the State to continue, subject to modification; the interim order of 26 November 2025 granting bail confirmed.