The Court allowed the appeal challenging directions to register a C.B.I. case issued in a bail application. Relying on precedents, the Court held that such directions exceed jurisdiction in a bail petition. The impugned order to the C.B.I. was set aside.
The impugned order directing the C.B.I. to register a case was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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.
with the directions issued by the learned Single
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.03.24 17:05:17 IST Reason:
Judge of the High Court, directing the Director,
Page 1 of 7
Central Bureau of Investigation1 to register a case based on the statement of one Dr. Umakant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 and conduct investigation thereon; in a bail application.
i) State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others3 ;
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 another4 ;
iii) Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS and others5 ; and
(iv) Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma6 .
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
respondent who is the applicant for bail, does not join issue.
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. Murugesan3 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 Kumar Singh4 and Man Singh Verma5 ; in which latter 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.
Page 6 of 7
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.
disposed of.
……………………..……………, J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J. [K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI; MARCH 24, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a direction to the C.B.I. to register a case can be issued in a bail application.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to retain a file and direct re-investigation post-bail decision.
Whether the appeal challenging the directions to the C.B.I. should be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan and anotherRelied on¶38
(2020) 15 SCC 251 · Who else cites this
Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS and othersRelied on¶38
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 304 · Who else cites this
Union of India Thr. I.O. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh VermaRelied on¶38
2025 INSC 292 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DR. RITU GARG
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
SUDHANSHU DHULIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
