2020 (1) TMI 1719 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court cannot use Section 482 inherent powers to bypass statutory procedures when deciding bail applications

SC held that HC's jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is limited to granting or refusing bail pending trial. Inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be ... Seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code - Whether the accused are entitled to be admitted to bail, that is the jurisdiction conferred on the Court in terms of Section 439 of the Code? - HELD THAT:- This Court in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [2011 (12) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT] referred to a case reported as Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr. [1990 (3) TMI 377 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Court observed that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. It was held that inherent powers cannot be exercised assuming that the statute conferred an unfettered and arbitrary jurisdiction, nor can the High Court act at its whim or caprice. The Code does not confer unlimited/unfettered jurisdiction on the High Court as the “ends of justice” and “abuse of the process of the court” have to be dealt with in accordance with law and not otherwise. The High Court has not been given nor does it possess any inherent power to make any order, which in the opinion of the court, could be in the interest of justice as the statutory provision is not intended to bypass the procedure prescribed. It was also held that the High Court can always issue appropriate direction in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the behest of an aggrieved person, if the court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide or the matter is not investigated at all, but even in such a case, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can insist only for the observance of due process as provided in the Code. This Court in a judgment reported as Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat [2018 (10) TMI 1990 - SUPREME COURT] was examining a question where a court after grant of bail to an accused ordered the accused and their relatives to undergo scientific test viz. lie detector, brain mapping and Narco-Analysis. This Court held that direction of the court to carry out such tests is not only in contravention to the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence but also violates statutory requirements. The learned Single Judge has collated data from the State and made it part of the order after the decision of the bail application as if the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order under the guise of improving the criminal justice system in the State. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439 of the Code is limited to grant or not to grant bail pending trial. Even though the object of the Hon’ble Judge was laudable but the jurisdiction exercised was clearly erroneous. The effort made by the Hon’ble Judge may be academically proper to be presented at an appropriate forum but such directions could not be issued under the colour of office of the Court. Conclusion - i) The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 is confined to bail-related matters, and any directions beyond this scope are outside its authority. ii) Inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in connection with matters directly related to the proceedings. iii) Judicial processes should not be used to address broader policy issues or governance matters beyond the legal framework of the case. Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by constituting a committee to recommend reforms in the criminal justice system after granting bail. The appropriateness of the High Court's actions in retaining jurisdiction and issuing directions beyond the scope of the bail application. The extent of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and whether these powers were properly exercised.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The legal framework under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the High Court to grant bail. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to deciding whether to grant or deny bail. Once the bail application is decided, the jurisdiction of the High Court ceases.The Court found that the High Court committed a grave illegality by retaining the file after granting bail and issuing directions unrelated to the bail application. The High Court's actions were compared to a precedent case, State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, where the Court deprecated the exercise of jurisdiction beyond the scope of the appeal.Issue 2: Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 of the CodeThe Court examined the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, which are meant to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. However, these powers cannot be exercised in a manner that bypasses specific statutory provisions or extends jurisdiction beyond its intended scope.The Court referred to Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, emphasizing that inherent powers should not be used to create new issues unrelated to the original proceedings. The High Court's exercise of power was deemed inappropriate as it ventured into areas beyond its jurisdiction under Section 439.Issue 3: Appropriateness of Directions Issued by the High CourtThe Court highlighted that the High Court's directions to form a committee for criminal justice reforms were beyond the scope of a bail application. The Court cited Reserve Bank of India v. General Manager, Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha, where the Court held that directions affecting broader issues should not be issued in the context of a bail application.The Court also referenced Santosh Singh v. Union of India, underscoring that judicial processes should not address issues of governance or policy that fall outside the legal framework of the case at hand.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the High Court's order constituting a committee and issuing directions for criminal justice reforms was not sustainable in law. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 439 was limited to the grant or denial of bail, and any actions beyond this scope were erroneous.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439 of the Code is limited to grant or not to grant bail pending trial. Even though the object of the Hon'ble Judge was laudable, the jurisdiction exercised was clearly erroneous.'The Court reiterated the principle that inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to bypass statutory provisions or to address issues unrelated to the original proceedings.Core Principles Established: The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 is confined to bail-related matters, and any directions beyond this scope are outside its authority. Inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in connection with matters directly related to the proceedings. Judicial processes should not be used to address broader policy issues or governance matters beyond the legal framework of the case.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The High Court's order of April 24, 2019, was set aside as it exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by Section 439 of the Code. The appeal was allowed, reaffirming the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in bail matters.