Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 385
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7422 of 2023)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DR. RITU GARG & ORS. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh is aggrieved
with the directions issued by the learned Single
Signature Not Verified
Judge of the High Court, directing the Director,
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.24
17:05:17 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 7
1
Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case
based on the statement of one Dr. Umakant under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
2
1973 and conduct investigation thereon; in a bail
application.
3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State took umbrage in such
directions being issued in a bail application; which,
according to him, has been deprecated by this Court
also. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the
following decisions of this Court:
i)
State of West Bengal and
v.
others Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
3
others ;
1 “the C.B.I.”
2 “the Cr.P.C.”
3 (2010) 3 SCC 571
Page 2 of 7
ii) State Represented by
Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan and
4
another ;
iii) Seemant Kumar Singh v.
5
Mahesh PS and others ; and
(iv) Union of India Thr. I.O.
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh
6
Verma .
4. It was also contended that the Uttar
Pradesh Government had requested the Government
of India for a C.B.I. inquiry as early as on
11.10.2022 and on 13.04.2023, there was a
communication that it would not be feasible. As of
now, the investigation has considerably progressed
and transferring the same at this stage, would
seriously affect the morale of the State Police.
4 (2020) 15 SCC 251
5 (2023) SCC OnLine SC 304
6 2025 INSC 292
Page 3 of 7
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent who is the applicant for bail, does not
join issue.
2
6. The State of West Bengal held that it was
permissible for the High Court under Article 226
and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
7
Constitution of India in exercise of the power of
judicial review, to protect and enforce fundamental
rights in general and Article 21 in particular, to
issue directions to the CBI to investigate a case even
without the consent of the State Government.
However, it was cautioned that this extraordinary
power has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and
in exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence
in investigations or where the incident may have
7 “the Constitution”
Page 4 of 7
national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice or enforcing fundamental rights. M.
3
Murugesan was a case in which this Court
unequivocally held that the jurisdiction in a bail
application ends, when a bail application is finally
decided, either granting or refusing bail. Therein,
after taking decision on bail application, the High
Court had retained the file and directed the State to
form a Committee and seek its recommendations on
improving the quality of investigation; which was
held to be improper, finding no such jurisdiction
under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. The said decision was followed in Seemant
4 5
and ; in which latter
Kumar Singh Man Singh Verma
decision it was noticed that time and again, the act
Page 5 of 7
of Courts overstepping the limits of its jurisdiction,
has clearly been frowned upon.
7. In the instant case, the bail application
stood allowed but based on a Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement, confronted to the Investigating Officer;
present in Court, who also stated that the
allegations made therein was not got verified from
the senior officers of the Government; the directions
were issued. We are afraid that no exceptional or
extraordinary circumstance has been brought out
from the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or a
statement made by the Investigating Officer, who
was present in the Court, without verifying the
records. We are also bound by the precedents which
unequivocally hold that there can be no such
direction issued in a bail application.
Page 6 of 7
8. The impugned order is set aside to the
extent the directions are issued to the C.B.I. We
make it clear that even the State did not have an
objection to the bail granted in the present appeal
and in that circumstance, we have refrained from
looking at the facts leading to the investigation; lest
that, in any manner, interfere with the investigation.
9. The appeal stands allowed as above.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 24, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7422 of 2023)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DR. RITU GARG & ORS. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh is aggrieved
with the directions issued by the learned Single
Signature Not Verified
Judge of the High Court, directing the Director,
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.24
17:05:17 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 7
1
Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case
based on the statement of one Dr. Umakant under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
2
1973 and conduct investigation thereon; in a bail
application.
3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State took umbrage in such
directions being issued in a bail application; which,
according to him, has been deprecated by this Court
also. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the
following decisions of this Court:
i)
State of West Bengal and
v.
others Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
3
others ;
1 “the C.B.I.”
2 “the Cr.P.C.”
3 (2010) 3 SCC 571
Page 2 of 7
ii) State Represented by
Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan and
4
another ;
iii) Seemant Kumar Singh v.
5
Mahesh PS and others ; and
(iv) Union of India Thr. I.O.
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh
6
Verma .
4. It was also contended that the Uttar
Pradesh Government had requested the Government
of India for a C.B.I. inquiry as early as on
11.10.2022 and on 13.04.2023, there was a
communication that it would not be feasible. As of
now, the investigation has considerably progressed
and transferring the same at this stage, would
seriously affect the morale of the State Police.
4 (2020) 15 SCC 251
5 (2023) SCC OnLine SC 304
6 2025 INSC 292
Page 3 of 7
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent who is the applicant for bail, does not
join issue.
2
6. The State of West Bengal held that it was
permissible for the High Court under Article 226
and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
7
Constitution of India in exercise of the power of
judicial review, to protect and enforce fundamental
rights in general and Article 21 in particular, to
issue directions to the CBI to investigate a case even
without the consent of the State Government.
However, it was cautioned that this extraordinary
power has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and
in exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence
in investigations or where the incident may have
7 “the Constitution”
Page 4 of 7
national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice or enforcing fundamental rights. M.
3
Murugesan was a case in which this Court
unequivocally held that the jurisdiction in a bail
application ends, when a bail application is finally
decided, either granting or refusing bail. Therein,
after taking decision on bail application, the High
Court had retained the file and directed the State to
form a Committee and seek its recommendations on
improving the quality of investigation; which was
held to be improper, finding no such jurisdiction
under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. The said decision was followed in Seemant
4 5
and ; in which latter
Kumar Singh Man Singh Verma
decision it was noticed that time and again, the act
Page 5 of 7
of Courts overstepping the limits of its jurisdiction,
has clearly been frowned upon.
7. In the instant case, the bail application
stood allowed but based on a Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement, confronted to the Investigating Officer;
present in Court, who also stated that the
allegations made therein was not got verified from
the senior officers of the Government; the directions
were issued. We are afraid that no exceptional or
extraordinary circumstance has been brought out
from the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or a
statement made by the Investigating Officer, who
was present in the Court, without verifying the
records. We are also bound by the precedents which
unequivocally hold that there can be no such
direction issued in a bail application.
Page 6 of 7
8. The impugned order is set aside to the
extent the directions are issued to the C.B.I. We
make it clear that even the State did not have an
objection to the bail granted in the present appeal
and in that circumstance, we have refrained from
looking at the facts leading to the investigation; lest
that, in any manner, interfere with the investigation.
9. The appeal stands allowed as above.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 24, 2025.
Page 7 of 7