Sale Of Accused's Property Can't Be Ordered As Bail Condition : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that bail conditions must not be punitive or determinative in nature and cannot deprive an accused of their right to use their property by requiring the sale of that property as a condition for bail. A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Madras High Court order that had required the sale of immovable properties of the accused as a condition for the grant of bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. “…we are of considered opinion that neither Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 nor Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 would enable a Court at the stage of bail or investigation to direct the sale of immovable property belonging to accused for settlement of alleged claims.”, the court observed. The case arose from a complaint dated June 4, 2025, alleging cheating and misappropriation of funds, which led to registration of FIR, where the Appellant-accused, and another person, were booked under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 420 (cheating) read with 34 (common intention) of the IPC. They were arrested and remained in custody for 83 days during the investigation. While the Sessions Court rejected their bail plea, the Madras High Court granted bail but imposed a controversial condition directing the Judicial Magistrate to sell the accused's immovable properties and thereafter distribute the proceeds among the complainant and similarly placed victims, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court observed that it is impermissible for the Court to impose such conditions which have no nexus with the object of granting bail. It added that the bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. “…ordering of sale of property as a bail condition is in the nature of a final civil relief which affect the property rights cannot be sustained.”, the court said. The Court said that the High Court, in fact, went beyond its bail jurisdiction to decide the civil dispute amongst the parties while ordering the sale of the Appellant's property, which was the subject matter of a pending civil suit. “We reiterate the proposition that the jurisdiction of Court while granting bail is not to decide the civil rights or disputes or imposed conditions which virtually grant the final civil relief which the complainant may be urging. Such conditions would be alien to the bail provisions as held by this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. And Others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 196.”, the court observed. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. “…the impugned order imposing the condition of selling the properties of the appellants for grant of bail not being warranted is set aside.”, the court held.HeadnoteBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 437/439) – Bail Conditions – Recovery Proceedings – The Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of a Court while considering bail is limited to assessing whether an accused should be released pending trial and imposing conditions to ensure a fair trial - It does not extend to adjudicating civil rights or directing the recovery of alleged dues - held that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 nor the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables a Court, at the stage of bail, to direct the sale of an accused's immovable property to settle alleged claims.Bail Conditions vs. Final Civil Relief – A bail condition must be regulatory, not punitive or determinative. Ordering the sale of property as a condition for bail is in the nature of a final civil relief that affects property rights and cannot be sustained - Even if a counsel volunteers to sell property to secure bail, the Court should refrain from "tweaking" bail provisions to convert them into recovery proceedings. [Relied on Sumit Mehta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570; Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) 10 SCC 77; Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 6 SCC 196; Paras 6 – 11]Cause Title: FEROZE BASHA & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADUCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 389Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. E Mohammed Abbas, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. M Laxmi Mahendraa, Adv. Mr. U Kathiravan, Adv. Mr. Abbas, B, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR

Sale Of Accused's Property Can't Be Ordered As Bail Condition : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings, the Court held.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Sale Of Accused's Property Can't Be Ordered As Bail Condition : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings, the Court held.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers