Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rambalak, was an accused in Case Crime No.175/2002 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Hamirpur. His second bail application (CRMBA 9700 of 2025) was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 1st April 2025. While dismissing the bail application, the High Court directed the Trial Court to issue summons under Sections 62 and 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also take coercive measures against those who delay or impede proceedings. The High Court relied on its earlier orders in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P. (CRMBA 16871 of 2023) and Jitendra v. State of U.P. (CRMBA 9126 of 2023), where similar directions were issued. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by interim order dated 26th November 2025, released the appellant on bail and posted the matter to consider the issue of the power of the court to issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions unrelated to the grant or refusal of bail. The limited issue in a bail application is whether the accused should be released on bail. The High Court cannot, in a bail order, issue directions regarding service of summons or coercive measures against third parties. Such directions must be passed in appropriate proceedings, not in a bail application. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order to the extent of the directions issued, and clarified that the bail granted to the appellant by the interim order stands confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Jurisdiction - Scope of Directions - While dismissing a bail application, the High Court cannot issue directions unrelated to the grant or refusal of bail, such as directing the Trial Court to issue summons under Sections 62 and 69 CrPC and take coercive measures against those delaying proceedings - Such directions exceed the limited jurisdiction of a bail court and must be passed in appropriate proceedings (Paras 2-4). B) Criminal Procedure - Service of Summons - Coercive Measures - The High Court's direction to the Trial Court to follow judgments in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P. and Jitendra v. State of U.P., and directions of DGP and Home Secretary, is beyond the scope of bail jurisdiction - The power under Section 482 CrPC or inherent powers cannot be exercised in a bail order for general systemic improvements (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, while dismissing a bail application, can issue directions to the Trial Court regarding service of summons and coercive measures against persons delaying proceedings?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court to the extent of the directions issued regarding summons and coercive measures, and confirmed the bail granted to the appellant by the interim order dated 26th November 2025.
Law Points
- Bail jurisdiction is limited to consideration of bail
- courts cannot issue directions unrelated to bail while disposing of bail applications
- Power of High Court under Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised in bail orders for general systemic improvements
- Directions for service of summons and coercive measures must be issued in appropriate proceedings
- not in bail orders
