'Bail Jurisdiction Can't Be Used To Issue General Directions' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC Directives On Summons Service

The Supreme Court has set aside directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in bail proceedings requiring trial courts to take specific measures for service of summons and coercive processes, holding that such far-reaching directions could not have been issued while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the ruling in an appeal filed by accused Rambalak, who had challenged the Allahabad High Court's rejection of his second bail application in a case arising from a 2002 criminal case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

While the immediate challenge arose from denial of bail, the Supreme Court noted that the real issue concerned the High Court's directions to the trial court to issue summons under Sections 62 and 69 CrPC and take coercive action against persons delaying proceedings. These directions were based on earlier Allahabad High Court orders in Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir v. State of U.P. and Jitendra v. State of U.P., which had sought to address systemic delays in execution of summons and production of witnesses.

In those earlier proceedings, the Allahabad High Court had called for affidavits from the Uttar Pradesh Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police, expressing concern over failures in service of summons and execution of coercive processes. Based on those proceedings, the State government and police had introduced an administrative framework including district nodal officers, central process registers, periodic monitoring, and departmental accountability mechanisms for police officials responsible for serving court processes. The High Court had treated those executive directions as its own orders for implementation.

The Supreme Court held that the question was whether such directions could validly be issued under Section 483 BNSS, which governs the powers of High Courts and Sessions Courts in bail matters.

Relying on its recent decision in State of U.P. v. Anurudh(2026), the Court reiterated that bail jurisdiction is limited to deciding whether an accused should be released pending trial or remain in custody. It emphasized that although High Courts are constitutional courts, statutory powers exercised under bail provisions cannot be expanded beyond the scope of the statute by invoking broader constitutional status.

“The constitutional power cannot overshadow the statutory power, enlarging its scope beyond what has been envisaged by the statute,” the Court observed.

Holding that the Allahabad High Court had committed a jurisdictional error, the bench said the impugned directions could not be sustained.

However, the Court clarified that the administrative steps already taken by Uttar Pradesh authorities to improve execution of summons and warrants would continue independently of the judicial directions, with liberty to the State to modify them in accordance with prevailing law.

The Supreme Court also clarified that its ruling did not comment on the merits of the earlier grant or denial of bail. It confirmed its interim order dated November 26, 2025, by which the appellant had been released on bail, and allowed the appeal.

Case : Rambalak v State of UP

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 527

Click here to read the judgment

Appearances  :

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ramjee Pandey, AOR Ms. Sneha Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anugrah Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv.

Amicus Curiae : Ms Akriti Chaubey