Bail Jurisdiction Cannot Expand Administrative Powers

The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court, while dealing with a second bail application, could issue directions on the administration of summons service and coercive process execution. The appeal arose from a bail rejection in a case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The Court noted that the High Court had not confined itself to the bail question. It had directed the trial court to issue summons under Sections 62 and 69 Cr.P.C. and to take coercive measures against persons delaying proceedings. Those directions were linked to earlier orders in which the High Court had sought affidavits from senior State अधिकारियों and had treated certain administrative measures as directions of the Court.

The Supreme Court had already granted interim bail on 26 November 2025 and then took up the larger question, namely the power of a court to issue such directions while exercising bail jurisdiction.

The Court held that the impugned directions could not be sustained. It reasoned that constitutional and statutory powers operate within different limits. Judicial review of constitutional power examines constitutional limitations, including fundamental rights and basic structure. Judicial review of statutory power is confined to whether the authority acted within the scope and purpose of the statute. The Court said that constitutional power cannot overshadow statutory power and enlarge its scope beyond what the statute envisages.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the directions issued in the earlier bail orders, insofar as they required the trial court and State machinery to follow those administrative measures, suffered from jurisdictional error. Those directions were set aside.

At the same time, the Court protected the steps already taken by the State authorities. It clarified that those measures would remain unaffected and continue independently of the impugned orders. The State was left free to modify them in accordance with prevailing law if needed.

The Court also made it clear that it was not commenting on the grant or denial of bail in the earlier orders. The interim order dated 26 November 2025 was confirmed with the stated stipulation, and the appeal was allowed.

Practical takeaway: bail jurisdiction cannot be used to issue administrative directions that travel beyond the court’s statutory or constitutional remit.