High Court cannot issue broad administrative directions for judicial systems while exercising statutory bail jurisdiction.

The Appellant’s second bail application in a case involving Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC was rejected by the Allahabad High Court

While dismissing the bail, the High Court issued extensive directions to the Trial Court to take coercive measures and mandated that state officials (Additional Chief Secretary, DGP, etc.) implement departmental accountability systems for the service of summons, citing its previous orders in Bhanwar Singh and Jitendra v. State of U.P.

These directions included creating nodal officers, witness registers, and monitoring mechanisms

The Appellant challenged the High Court's authority to issue such systemic administrative directions while exercising statutory bail jurisdiction

Whether the High Court, while exercising its statutory power to grant or deny bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has the jurisdiction to issue far-reaching administrative directions regarding the state's criminal justice infrastructure and departmental accountability

Section 483 of the BNSS (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.), which defines the special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail

The Court primarily interpreted Section 483 of the BNSS... It relied heavily on the precedent State of U.P. v. Anurudh (2026), which distinguishes between "Constitutional power" (inherent, sovereign powers emanating from the Constitution) and "Statutory power" (derivative powers limited by the enabling statute)

The rule established is that a statutory power cannot be used to enlarge a court's scope beyond what the legislature envisaged, and judicial review under a specific statute must conform strictly to that statute’s parameters

The jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS is strictly limited to adjudicating whether an accused should be released pending trial or remain incarcerated

The High Court erred by treating its statutory bail jurisdiction as a platform to exercise broad constitutional or supervisory powers

In applying the Anurudh principle, the Court found that while the High Court is a Constitutional Court, when it acts under a specific statute (BNSS), its orders must remain within the "four corners" of that law

Systemic directions regarding the administrative functioning of the police and the service of summons exceed the specific mandate of deciding a bail application, thus rendering such directions ultra vires of the statutory power conferred by Section 483

the Supreme Court set aside the impugned directions for jurisdictional error... However, to avoid administrative chaos, the Court directed that the steps already taken by the State authorities (like the appointment of nodal officers) would remain unaffected and continue to function independently of the quashed court orders. The interim bail granted to the Appellant on 26th November 2025 was confirmed