LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/union-of-india-thr-i-o-narcotics-control-bureau-vs-man-singh-verma-20250228/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

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

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
28 February 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2025
Result
Partly allowed
Bench
Sanjay Karol, Manmohan
Citation
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1534 : 2025 INSC 292
Acts & Sections
CrPC Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances…
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1534 : 2025 INSC 292
Issue for consideration
Issue arose whether the contours of s.439 CrPC permit the grant of compensation by the High Court to the appellant for alleged wrongful confinement for four months in a matter of possession of narcotic substances.
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail – Scope of – Adjudication of bail application – High Court directed the Director of Narcotics Control Bureau to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to the appellant for alleged wrongful confinement for four months in a matter of possession of narcotic substances – Correctness:

Held: Grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was without the authority of law – Jurisdiction conferred upon a Court u/s.439 is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial – Application for bail filed before the High Court had become infructuous since the District Court had already released the respondent – Straightforward course of action that ought to have been adopted, was that the bail application would have been dismissed as such – No occasion arose for the Court to pass an order delving into the aspects of impermissibility of retesting and/or wrongful confinement – Not only was the same outside the bounds, 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 – Undue restriction of liberty, 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 instant facts – Thus, order of the High Court, to the extent of granting compensation, is set aside. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10]

Keywords: Wrongful confinement for four months · Possession of narcotic substances · Bail · Adjudication of bail application · Payment of compensation for wrongful confinement · Grant or refusal of bail pending trial · Wrongful confinement · Undue restriction of liberty

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Sanjay Karol J. 1. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2812 of 2023, wherein 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. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Union of India through NCB has preferred the present appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :2.1. In a join
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →