State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Ritu Garg

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)

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The State of Uttar Pradesh is aggrieved

with the directions issued by the learned Single

Judge of the High Court, directing the Director, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.03.24 17:05:17 IST Reason: 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.

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 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.

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.

6. The State of West Bengal2 held that it was

permissible for the High Court under Article 226

and the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India7 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.

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.

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