New Delhi, June 8, 2026
In a significant ruling shaping bail jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has held that courts, while granting anticipatory bail, cannot impose conditions that amount to granting substantive relief in a pending civil dispute.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan made the observations while partly allowing appeals filed by accused persons against a Madras High Court order that had restrained them from interfering with a disputed property until the conclusion of a civil suit.
Setting aside the impugned condition, the apex court said that the High Court, while granting anticipatory bail, ought not to have imposed a restriction that was akin to granting relief in the civil proceedings.
“We are of the view that while granting anticipatory bail, the High Court should not have imposed a condition which is tantamount to granting of some relief in the suit itself, which otherwise the civil court has not granted,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said.
The case arose from an FIR registered at Perunazhi Police Station in Tamil Nadu’s Ramanathapuram district for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including allegations of trespass, causing damage to property and criminal intimidation.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons had allegedly trespassed into land claimed by the de facto complainant, damaged fencing, banana crops, CCTV cameras and electrical installations, and threatened the complainant and her family members.
While granting anticipatory bail on February 24, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed that the accused “shall not interfere in the disputed property until the suit is over”, apart from imposing other bail conditions.
The High Court had taken note of rival claims over the property and the pendency of a civil suit before the sub-court at Mudukulathur. It observed that the de facto complainant claimed possession of the property on the basis of a mortgage and held that it would be appropriate to restrain the accused from interfering with the disputed property until the matter was resolved.
Before the Supreme Court, it was highlighted that the complainant had instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction in 2019 and that no interim injunction had been granted by the civil court.
Taking note of this aspect, the apex court observed that the civil suit had remained pending since 2019 and that even an application seeking an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been taken up for hearing. The bench further noted that one of the accused had claimed to have purchased the suit property and was a defendant in the pending civil proceedings.
“The plaintiff has not prayed for any injunction pending the suit,” the top court recorded, while examining the propriety of the bail condition.
Holding that the condition travelled beyond the permissible scope of anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court set aside the direction restraining the accused from interfering with the disputed property until the disposal of the civil suit.
Allowing the appeals in part, it directed that all remaining conditions imposed by the Madras High Court would continue to operate.
The Supreme Court added that if the complainant apprehended breach of peace or interference with the property, appropriate remedies could be sought before the civil court or any other competent forum. “If the complainant as plaintiff has any apprehension as regards the breach of peace, interference with the suit property, etc., he may pray for appropriate relief before the civil court or any appropriate forum in accordance with law,” it said.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
