The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts, while deciding bail applications under their statutory bail jurisdiction, cannot issue broad administrative or policy directions unrelated to the limited question of grant or refusal of bail.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale emphasized that powers exercised under bail provisions are confined by the statute and cannot be expanded through judicial directions that effectively create wider administrative mandates.
The judgment came in an appeal arising from an Allahabad High Court order that had gone beyond consideration of a bail plea and directed trial courts to issue summons and take coercive measures against persons delaying criminal proceedings. The High Court had also reiterated earlier directions relating to improving the execution of summons and witness production within the criminal justice system.
The earlier directions had originated from concerns over delays in the service of summons and witness production in Uttar Pradesh. In previous bail proceedings, the High Court had called upon senior State officials, including the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police, to establish systems ensuring accountability of officers responsible for service of summons and execution of coercive processes. Those directions included measures such as appointment of nodal officers, maintenance of process registers, monitoring systems, and departmental accountability mechanisms.
The Supreme Court examined whether such directions could validly be issued under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which deals with special powers of High Courts and Sessions Courts regarding bail. The Court noted that the provision primarily authorizes courts to grant bail, modify bail conditions, or cancel bail, and does not confer broader powers to formulate administrative frameworks or governance measures.
In its analysis, the Court relied significantly upon its earlier decision in State of U.P. v. Anurudh, where it had dealt with a similar issue involving directions issued during bail proceedings. There, the Court had held that bail jurisdiction remains confined to determining whether an accused should be released pending trial or continue to remain in custody.
A major observation in the judgment was the distinction drawn between constitutional powers and statutory powers. The Supreme Court explained that constitutional powers originate directly from the Constitution and possess a foundational status, whereas statutory powers derive their existence and scope from legislative enactments and must operate strictly within the limits prescribed by the statute. The Court observed that statutory powers cannot be expanded by invoking constitutional principles in a manner that overrides legislative boundaries.
The Bench clarified that while High Courts undoubtedly possess constitutional authority in appropriate proceedings, exercise of statutory bail powers cannot transform into an avenue for issuing sweeping administrative directives. According to the Court, one jurisdiction cannot enlarge or absorb another unless expressly permitted by law.
The Supreme Court set aside the directions issued in the bail proceedings, holding them unsustainable due to jurisdictional error. However, it also clarified that measures already undertaken independently by State authorities for improving process execution and witness management would continue unaffected and could be modified by the State in accordance with prevailing law.
Importantly, the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of grant or denial of bail in the previous matters.
Case Details
Case Title: Rambalak Versus State Of U.P.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1303-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 16332 of 2025
Date: 19/05/2026
Read More: Mediclaim Benefits Can’t Be Deducted From MACT Compensation: Supreme Court
