Apex Court Nullifies CBI Inquiry Order Issued in Bail Proceeding, Reaffirms Jurisdictional Boundaries

The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court while considering a bail application wherein, contrary to the usual scope of inquiry in bail matters, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the CBI to register a case and conduct an investigation based on a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The Senior Counsel represented the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged this order, contending that giving such orders in an application for bail has been continuously deprecated by the Supreme Court. The counsel also pointed out that the Uttar Pradesh Government had already sought a CBI inquiry previously but was apprised of its impracticability and that the investigation by the state police had already made considerable progress. The counsel for the bail applicant did not dispute the State's contentions.

The Supreme Court, yet again reiterated the settled legal position concerning the powers of the High Court under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to direct CBI investigations for the protection of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21. However, it emphasized that this special power has to be invoked sparingly and judiciously and only in extraordinary situations in order to maintain credibility and to infuse confidence in inquiries, or in cases of national or international significance, or in need of full justice or enforcement of constitutional rights.

The Apex Court referred to its earlier decisions, including State Represented by Inspector of Police vs M. Murugesan (Click to Download), which unequivocally established that the jurisdiction in a bail application concludes upon the final determination of the bail petition, whether by grant or refusal. The Court further observed that the subsequent retention of the file and issuance of directions unrelated to the bail itself are improper and beyond the scope of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., and this principle was further affirmed in case of Seemant Kumar Singh vs Mahesh PS (Click to Download) and Union of India vs Man Singh Verma (Click to Download), where the Court frowned upon courts overstepping their jurisdictional limits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's direction for a CBI investigation, based on a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement during a bail hearing and without verification from senior government officers, did not constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance warranting such an intervention.

The Apex Court firmly held that issuing such a directive within a bail application was contrary to established precedents and consequently, the Apex Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court to the extent it directed the CBI investigation.

The Court clarified that the State had not objected to the bail granted in the present appeal, and therefore, the Court refrained from examining the factual details of the investigation to avoid any potential interference. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Coram: Justice SUDHANSHU DHULIA and Justice K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Between: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS DR. RITU GARG & ORS 2025 INSC 385
Date of Judgment: 24-03-2025 (Non-Reportable)