Rambalak vs State Of U.P.

2026 INSC 511
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __________________ OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 16332 of 2025)


RAMBALAK ... APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.05.19
17:39:07 IST
Reason:
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 1 of 12

2. On first blush, this appeal at the instance of the accused
1
was directed against the rejection of his second bail application
2
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a case arising
out of Case Crime No.175/2002 under Sections 419,420.467,468
3
and 471, Indian Penal Code 1860 at PS Hamirpur, presents that
limited issue, but it is not so. While dismissing the bail
application, the Court directed that the Trial Court should issue
summons under Section 62 and 69 Cr.P.C. and also take coercive
measures as against those persons who delay or impede
proceedings. This issue of delay in serving summons for taking
coercive measures apparently was considered by the court in
4
Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P . and Jitendra
5
v. State of U.P . . It was directed that the Trial Court was under
an obligation to follow the abovesaid judgment as also the
directions issued by the Director General of Police and Home
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, in compliance thereof.


th
3. Vide interim order dated 26 November 2025 this Court
had released the appellant on bail and then posted the matter for
consideration on a subsequent date regarding issue of the power
of the Court to issue directions while exercising bail jurisdiction.

1 st
Order dated 1 April 2025
2
CRMBA 9700 of 2025
3
IPC
4
CRMBA 16871 of 2023
5
CRMBA 9126 of 2023
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 2 of 12

4. Since the directions issued by the Court are the mainstay
of the appeal, let us discuss the same in detail. In terms of order
th
dated 14 September 2023, in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.
9126 of 2023 the learned Single Judge observed that the criminal
justice system within the State suffered from great difficulties in
delay of execution of summons and the production of witnesses.
As such, he called for affidavits of the concerned authorities in
the following terms:
“In this wake, this Court is forced to call for the personal
affidavits of Additional Chief Secretary (Home),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as well as
Director General of Police, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow on the following issues:
I. The current system of departmental
accountability of officials nominated by statutes
for service of summons and execution of
coercive measures issued by the trial courts has
failed.
II. To create an efficacious departmental
accountability system where officers nominated
by the statute (Cr.P.C. as well as Government
Orders from time to time) are held accountable
for failures to serve summons and execute
coercive measures and the inability to compel
appearance of witnesses despite orders of the
Court. The aforesaid officers nominated by the
statute and the government order for the
aforesaid purpose are Executive Magistrate,
Superintendent of Police of the districts,
Commissioner of Police, as well as Inspector
General of Police.
III. The system of accountability in the
department will become efficacious only if the
performance of officers is also judged on the
yardsticks of their ability to serve summons,
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 3 of 12

execute coercive measures issued by the court
and compel appearance of witnesses on the dates
fixed before the learned trial court.
IV. Penalty for departmental action/penalty for
failure to comply with the orders of the Court if
the explanation for the same is not satisfactory
is also liable to be included if the statutory
schemes of summons and enforcement of
coercive measures have to be implemented as
per law.
IV. The Director General of Police as well as
Additional Chief Secretary (Home) shall also
consider the judgment rendered by this Court in
Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir (supra) and the
report of the JTRI while filing their affidavits.
The Director General of Police as well as
Additional Chief Secretary (Home) shall always
bear in mind that that the efficiency of the
departmental system of accountability has a
direct bearing on the rule of law and credibility
of the criminal law process. ”

th
The next order i.e., the order dated 20 December 2023 passed in
Jitendra (supra), records the following directions to have been
issued by the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar
Pradesh. Similar, were the directions issued by the Director
General of Police of the concerned State. By the said order they
have been ordered to be treated as directions of the Court. The
same are extracted as under:
“Similarly, the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed
by the Director General of Police, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow are extracted hereunder:
"5. That in respect of the directions given by
Hon'ble High Court from time to time and
specially in 'Bhanwar Singh Case' regarding
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 4 of 12

timely execution of processes issued by the
learned trial courts the Principal Secretary
(Home), Govt. of U.P. vide Government Order
No. HC-100/6-PO-9-2023 Dated 14.10.2023
has issued the following directions:
i. A Superintendent of Police rank officer
has been appointed as a Nodal officer for
effective execution of processes
(summons/warrants/notices) issued by learned
trial courts, in every police
Commissionerate/District. In this respect D.G.
police circular dated 10.10.2023 will be strictly
complied by every Nodal officer.
ii. All District Nodal officers will ensure the
strict compliance of DG police circular dated
10.10.2023.
iii. All District Magistrates, Executive
Magistrates, District Incharge of police will
ensure the compliance of Government Order
dated 23.11.2022 issued by Department of
Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
iv. Additional Director General
(Prosecution) is directed to issue a direction
regarding maintainability of witness register
with 'Court Moharrir', in which name and
address, mobile number, Aadhar number of
every prosecution wintess will be mentioned
and a direction is also issued to insert a column
in the 'Pairavi Register' of concerned Pairokar
of Police Station.
v. District Nodal officer will ensure that the
Public Prosecutor and concerned 'Court
Moharrir' will have access to process register of
learned trial courts so that police
station/summon cell process register could be
matched. A direction to learned trial courts to
this effect, by Hon'ble High Court, will be
required.
vi. As per provision of Chapter 3 read with
Rule 12 of General Rules Criminal as well as
circular order C.L. Number 42/98 dated
20.08.98 issued by Hon'ble High Court the
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 5 of 12

name, designation, mobile number of police
official who received the court process will be
clearly mentioned in the column of process
register of learned trial court, so that his
responsibility could be fixed. A copy of
Government Order No. HC-100/6-PO-9-2023
Dated 14.10.2023 is annexed as Annexure No.
2 to this affidavit.
6. That in respect of the directions given by
Hon'ble High Court from time to time and
specially in 'Bhawar Singh Case' regarding
timely execution of processes issued by the
learned trial courts the deponent has issued the
following directions.
i. A central register will be prepared for entering
processes received from different trial courts in
the office of the Nodal Officer and a Desk will
be established for sending the summon/warrants
for its execution daily processes will be
recorded in central register, policeman will be
deployed at the process desk.
ii. The service receipt received after service of
summons/warrants will be entered in the central
register by policeman posted at summon desk
and service report will be communicated to the
concerned trial court.
iii. In compliance with the processes served, the
details of the witnesses present and examined in
trial courts will also be complied through
summon/warrant desk and it will be reviewed
from time to time at the competent officer level.
iv. Nodal officers will weekly examine the
Summons/warrants execution register.
v. A monthly statement will be prepared in
respect of the service of processes and same will
be presented before Nodal officer for perusal.
The Nodal officer will warn in writing to
subordinate Officers and station in charge who
are on laxity and after three consecutive months
of laxity, so cause notice will be issued against
the subordinate Officers and In-charge of Police
Station.
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 6 of 12

vi. At District level Deputy Superintendent of
Police/Additional Superintendent of Police and
at Police Commissionerate level Assistant
Police Commissioners will monitor the service
of processes by the concerned police stations
under their local jurisdiction and if any laxity
will be found Supervisory officers will be
accountable.
vii. Every Nodal Officer will be responsible
for execution of service of processes (summons
/warrants/ notices) under their local jurisdiction.
viii. Work of Nodal Officers will be regularly
assessed by Additional Director General of
Police (Zonal) and Regional Inspector General
of Police / Deputy Inspector General of Police
in case of any laxity, he will inform the
Headquarter of Director General of Police.
ix. As discussed above D.G. Circular no.
30/2023 dated 16.08.2023 has been partially
changed as Superintendent of Police will be a
Nodal Officer in place of Additional
Superintendent of Police. A copy of DG police
circular dated 10.10.23 is annexed as Annexure
No.3 to this affidavit.”
The Government Orders and the directions issued by
the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P.,
Lucknow as well as Director General of Police,
Government of U.P., Lucknow extracted herein earlier
from now on shall be treated as orders of this Court for
purposes of implementation.

The Director General of Police, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow and other responsible officials shall ensure
strict compliance of the directions extracted earlier”


5. In the impugned order, it is these directions that had been
reiterated. The sole question which arises for consideration is
whether under the power of Section 483 of BNSS 2023, the Court
could have issued such directions. We have heard learned counsel
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 7 of 12

for the appellant, the State and the amicus curiae , Ms. Akriti
Chaubey. We have also perused the written submission of the
parties.

6. Section 483 BNSS reads as under:
“ 483. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session
regarding bail.
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct,-
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be
released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in
sub-section (3) of section 480, may impose any condition
which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that
sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing
any person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall,
before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence
which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which,
though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life,
give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor
unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion
that it is not practicable to give such notice:
Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session
shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an
offence triable under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section 70
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, give notice of the
application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such
application.
(2) The presence of the informant or any person authorised by
him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application
for bail to the person under section 65 or sub-section (2) of
section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 8 of 12

(3) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any
person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be
arrested and commit him to custody. ”

6
7. In a recent case viz., State of U.P. v. Anurudh , also
arising from a matter before the Allahabad High Court wherein,
similar to the present case, far reaching directions had been issued
by the Court under bail jurisdiction, mandating the scientific
determination of the age of the victim in cases under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, in teeth
of the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2015 which is also applicable to the former, this
Court held the same to be impermissible in spite of reference to
Article 21 and the assertion of the Court that it is not denuded of
its constitutional power even while sitting in bail jurisdiction. The
relevant discussion is reproduced as under as it squarely covers
the issue in the present lis:
“11.2. The upshot of the above discussion is that a
Court's jurisdiction, i.e., either the Court of Sessions or
the High Court under Section 439CrPC is limited to
adjudicating the question of the person concerned being
released into society pending trial or whether they should
continue to be incarcerated.
11.3. It is unquestionable that High Court is a
constitutional Court. However, in the instant case the
error of jurisdiction by the High Court was in exercise of
a statutory power and not under the Constitution. The
powers arising from the Constitution and those flowing
from a statute are distinct and separate. A constitutional

6
2026 SCC OnLine SC 40
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 9 of 12

power is the one which emanates directly from the text
and spirit of the Constitution of India, the supreme and
fundamental charter of governance, and inheres in those
institutions or functionaries whose existence and
competence are defined by it. Such powers are self-
sustaining; they are not contingent upon any act of the
Legislature, nor can they be abridged or extinguished
except through a formal amendment under Article 368.
For example, the President's power to dissolve the Lok
Sabha under Article 85(2)(b); the Governor's authority to
reserve a bill for the consideration of the President under
Article 200, or the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 are all in exercise of constitutional
power. These powers represent the apex of the legal
hierarchy, deriving their legitimacy not from the will of
the people as expressed by Parliament, but from the
sovereignty of the Constitution itself.
In contrast, a statutory power is derivative and
conditional, drawing its vitality from a law duly enacted
by the Parliament or a State Legislature. Such power
exists only within the four corners of the enabling statute
and is circumscribed by its language, purpose, and
legislative intent. Illustratively, the powers conferred
upon the Central Government under the Environmental
(Protection) Act, 1986, to frame rules, issue directions, or
regulate industrial operations are purely statutory in
nature, as are the regulatory functions vested in the
Securities and Exchange Board of India under the SEBI
Act, 1992, or those entrusted to the Competition
Commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002.
The exercise of these powers must conform strictly to the
parameters laid down by the statute; any transgression
beyond its express or implied authority is rendered ultra
vires and, therefore, void in the eyes of law.
The essential distinction between these two species of
power lies not merely in their origin but also in their
constitutional status and susceptibility to control.
Constitutional powers are sovereign, foundational, and
insulated from the vicissitudes of ordinary legislation;
they can neither be curtailed nor expanded by
parliamentary enactment. Statutory powers, by contrast,
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 10 of 12

are subordinate and mutable, existing at the pleasure of
the Legislature, which may at any time amend, restrict,
or repeal them through the ordinary legislative process.
Judicial review, while applicable to both, assumes
different contours in each case: in relation to
constitutional powers, the Courts examine whether their
exercise conforms to constitutional limitations including
the protection of fundamental rights and the inviolable
tenets of the basic structure whereas, in the case of
statutory powers, the inquiry is confined to whether the
authority has acted within the scope and purpose of the
statute from which its power is drawn.
The constitutional power cannot overshadow the
statutory power, enlarging its scope beyond what has
been envisaged by the statute. In other words, while both
powers rest with the High Court, one power cannot usurp
the ambit of another, unless otherwise permitted by law.
”

8. In view of this short discussion alone, we are of the
considered view that the impugned judgment in so far as it directs
following what has been laid in the earlier bail orders, cannot be
sustained and has to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. However,
in the interest of justice we direct that the steps that have been
taken by the State authorities shall remain unaffected and
continue to function independent of the orders in which they
stood issued. The State shall be at liberty to modify the same to
be in consonance with the prevalent laws of the land should the
need so arise. It is further clarified that even though we have set
aside the directions on account of jurisdictional error, we have
made no comment on the grant or denial of bail, as the case may
be, in the earlier orders.
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 11 of 12

th
9. The order dated 26 November 2025 is confirmed with the
stipulation as mentioned in the said order.
The appeal is allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.


……………….…………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL)



……………………………J.
PRASANNA B. VARALE
New Delhi;
May 19, 2026
Crl.Appeal No…….of 2026 @SLP(Crl)No.16332 of 2025 Page 12 of 12