Compensation for Wrongful Confinement Must Be Claimed Under Proper Legal Remedies, Not in a Bail Application: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India on February 28, 2025, held that a High Court cannot grant compensation for alleged wrongful detention while adjudicating a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case, Union of India v. Man Singh Verma, arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to an accused who was eventually found to be innocent.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan ruled: “The jurisdiction of a court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to granting or refusing bail. It does not extend to awarding compensation, particularly when the accused is no longer in custody.”

The judgment reaffirms that compensation for wrongful detention or violation of fundamental rights must be claimed through appropriate legal channels, such as a writ petition under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, not in bail proceedings.

The case arose from a joint operation by the NCB, which led to the seizure of 1280 grams of brown powder—allegedly heroin—from the possession of Man Singh Verma and Aman Singh. The accused was booked under Sections 8(C), 21, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and remanded to judicial custody.

On January 6, 2023, an arrest memo was prepared, and four samples—SO1, SD1, SO2, and SD2—were drawn for chemical examination. The first set of samples (SO1 and SD1) was sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRPL), New Delhi.

While awaiting the test results, Man Singh Verma filed for bail, but the Special NDPS Judge, Barabanki, rejected his application on January 24, 2023. He then approached the Allahabad High Court, filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2812 of 2023.

On January 30, 2023, the CRPL report confirmed that the samples tested negative for heroin or any other narcotic substance. However, instead of releasing the accused immediately, the NCB sought permission to send the second set of samples (SO2 and SD2) to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh.

On April 5, 2023, the CFSL report also confirmed the absence of any narcotic substance. A closure report was filed on April 6, 2023, and Man Singh Verma was released from jail on April 10, 2023, after spending more than four months in custody for a crime he did not commit.

Despite his release, the Allahabad High Court proceeded with the pending bail application and, in its order dated May 22, 2024, directed the NCB to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for wrongful confinement. The NCB’s request for modification was rejected, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

"High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction by Granting Compensation in a Bail Application"
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s approach, ruling that a bail application is not the appropriate legal forum for awarding compensation. The Court observed: “Once the accused was released on April 10, 2023, the bail application before the High Court had become infructuous. The High Court ought to have dismissed the application instead of delving into the legality of re-testing or alleged wrongful confinement.”

Referring to Reserve Bank of India v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR Sha (2010) 15 SCC 85, the Court reiterated: “A bail proceeding is limited to securing or restricting liberty pending trial. A court cannot use this jurisdiction to pass orders with far-reaching consequences beyond the matter at hand.”

The Supreme Court further held that the High Court’s interference in evidence evaluation at the bail stage was contrary to established legal principles. Relying on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, the judgment emphasized: “At the stage of bail, the High Court must not conduct a detailed examination of evidence. The sole consideration is whether the accused is entitled to release pending trial.”

"Wrongful Detention May Be a Violation of Fundamental Rights, But Remedy Lies Elsewhere"
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the extended custody of Man Singh Verma, despite negative test results, raised concerns about the violation of his personal liberty. However, it ruled that the proper remedy was not through a bail application under Section 439 CrPC but through a constitutional remedy under Article 32 or 226.

Rejecting the argument that compensation should be awarded in bail proceedings, the Court cited precedents such as Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746, and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416. In these cases, compensation for unlawful detention was awarded through constitutional writs, not through bail orders.

The judgment clarified: “The cases relied upon by the respondent were decided under Article 32, where the Supreme Court exercises its writ jurisdiction for enforcing fundamental rights. The High Court, while hearing a bail application, does not have similar powers.”

The Court further noted that Section 69 of the NDPS Act provides immunity to officers acting in good faith, making it legally impermissible to impose a fine or liability without proof of malice.

"Retesting a Negative Sample Without Justification Was Illegal"
The Supreme Court did, however, acknowledge that sending a second sample for testing after receiving a negative report was unjustified and contrary to settled law. Referring to Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013) 2 SCC 590, the judgment reiterated:

“Re-testing a second sample is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Once a forensic report categorically states that a sample does not contain narcotic substances, the prosecution must move for closure.”

While the Court refrained from ruling on whether NCB officers acted in bad faith, it noted that continuing Verma’s detention after the first negative test report was legally questionable.

Supreme Court’s Final Ruling: Compensation Order Set Aside, but Wrongful Detention Can Be Challenged Separately
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order granting ₹5 lakh compensation. However, it clarified that this decision does not preclude the respondent from seeking compensation through appropriate legal remedies.

Concluding the judgment, the Court stated: “Granting compensation under a bail order is beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondent, however, is free to pursue remedies available in law, including filing a writ petition for violation of fundamental rights.”

The Court placed on record its appreciation for Senior Advocate Pijush K. Roy, who appeared as Amicus Curiae, for his assistance in resolving this matter.

The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes a crucial precedent that:

•    A High Court cannot grant compensation for wrongful confinement in a bail application.
•    Section 439 CrPC is limited to granting or denying bail and cannot be used for constitutional remedies.
•    Compensation for wrongful detention must be claimed under Article 32 or 226, not through criminal proceedings.
•    Retesting a negative sample without justification is impermissible under the NDPS Act.
This ruling prevents misuse of bail proceedings for broader reliefs and ensures that compensation for wrongful detention follows the correct constitutional and legal framework.

Date of Decision: February 28, 2025