Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the undue restriction of liberty, i.e., without the backing of procedures established by law, is unquestionably an affront to a person’s rights. However, the avenues to seek recourse of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per law, court added.

The apex court set aside an Allahabad High Court order directing the Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, to pay Rs five lakh to a man who was wrongly arrested in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan partly allowed an appeal filed by the Union government, accepting its contention that the order of compensation, passed while allowing bail, was without the authority of law.

"Time and again, the act of courts overstepping the bounds of jurisdiction, has clearly been frowned upon. The instant case is another such example," the bench said.

The respondent, Man Singh Verma, along with Aman Singh, was arrested for allegedly being in possession of 1,280 grams of brown powder (allegedly heroin), leading to the registration of an FIR on January 6, 2023. The Special Judge, NDPS, Barabanki District, rejected their bail plea on January 24, 2023.

On January 30, 2023, the Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi, issued its report stating that the sample tested negative for heroin and other narcotic substances.

The Investigating Officer then sent the samples to another Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh, for further examination.

On April 5, 2023, the report received from CFSL, Chandigarh, confirmed that the second set of samples also tested negative for any narcotic substance.

On April 6, 2023, the NCB filed a closure report before the Special Judge, NDPS. As a result, the respondent was released from District Jail, Barabanki, on April 10, 2023, under an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

Even after the filing of the closure report and the respondent’s release, the high court proceeded to adjudicate the pending bail application. By the impugned order on May 22, 2024, it observed that the respondent was a young person who had been wrongfully confined for four months despite the initial laboratory finding. Therefore, it directed the Director, NCB, to pay Rs 5,00,000 as compensation to him within two months and to file a compliance affidavit.

On July 16, 2024, the high court rejected an application for modification and waiver of compensation, holding that the plea was barred under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It also dismissed an application by a junior intelligence officer seeking an exemption from paying compensation.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay, representing the Union government, contended that the high court, while exercising its power under Section 439 CrPC, went beyond its jurisdiction by conducting a detailed examination of evidence and awarding compensation for alleged wrongful detention.

He argued that Section 69 of the NDPS Act provides protection to officers for acts done in good faith, thereby prohibiting prosecution as well as the imposition of fines without proof of mala fides.

The law officer further contended that the award of compensation was unwarranted, as the respondent had been released from custody on April 10, 2023—almost a year before the high court passed the impugned order—rendering the bail application infructuous.

Amicus Curiae senior advocate Pijush K Roy, however, submitted that re-testing a second sample of the same alleged contraband—when the first sample had already tested negative—was impermissible under the NDPS Act and the guidelines laid down in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013).

In the present case, the concerned authority should have filed an application for closure before the Special Judge upon receiving the first negative report on January 30, 2023. However, instead of filing such an application, the authority proceeded with the re-testing of a second sample, which was illegal and led to an unjustified extension of the respondent’s custody, he submitted.

He further argued that the principle of awarding compensatory relief for the violation of fundamental rights by public officials—recognized in Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), and D K Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)—should be extended to bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC.

The amicus curiae also stated that the protection under Section 69 of the NDPS Act is not absolute. The re-testing of the second sample was carried out with malice, as no exceptional circumstances were present, as required under Thana Singh, to justify the second examination by a laboratory.

The top court examined whether the contours of Section 439 CrPC permit the grant of compensation by the high court to the appellant.

Referring to Section 439 CrPC concerning the special powers of the high court or court of session regarding bail, the bench said, "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 emphasized that this court has repeatedly held that the scope of consideration when exercising power under Section 439 CrPC pertains only to securing or restricting the liberty of the person in question. In this regard, the court cited RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR Sha (2009), Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat (2019), and State v. M Murugesan (2020).

In the present case, the court noted that the application for bail before the high court had become infructuous since the district court had already released the respondent.

"The straightforward course of action that ought to have been adopted, therefore, 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," the bench said.

The bench also pointed out that the judgments cited by the amicus curiae were rendered by this court under Article 32 jurisdiction, which provides a remedy to any person whose fundamental rights have been violated.

"So, whereas the court has indeed held permissibility of grant of compensation, it has done so in the context of violation of fundamental rights. The undue restriction of liberty, i.e., 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 present facts," the bench said.

While setting aside the order for payment of compensation, the bench clarified that its observations should not be taken to preclude any remedy that may be available to the respondent as per law.

Case Title: Union of India Thro IO Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Man Singh Verma