New Delhi, April 18, 2026
In a significant ruling on bail jurisprudence, the Supreme Court held that courts cannot impose conditions requiring the sale of an accused’s property to settle alleged claims, observing that bail proceedings cannot be transformed into mechanisms for recovery or adjudication of civil disputes.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by the accused against a Madras High Court order that had directed the sale of their immovable properties and distribution of the proceeds among complainants as a condition for granting bail.
Setting aside the impugned condition, the apex court stressed that the jurisdiction of a court at the stage of bail is limited to assessing whether an accused should be released pending trial and to impose conditions that ensure a fair investigation or trial.
“At the outset, we would like to make it expressly clear that the jurisdiction of a Court while considering the bail is confined to assess whether the accused should be released pending investigation or trial… and it does not extend to adjudicate in civil rights or directing the recovery of alleged dues,” the Justice Kumar-led Bench said.
The case arose from an FIR registered in June 2025 at the CCB Police Station in Tamil Nadu’s Tiruchirappalli, alleging offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the IPC in connection with cheating and misappropriation of funds.
The appellants were arrested and remained in custody for 83 days during the investigation.
While the Sessions Court had rejected their bail plea, the Madras High Court granted relief but imposed a condition directing the jurisdictional magistrate to sell the appellants’ properties and distribute the sale proceeds to the complainant and similarly placed persons.
Disapproving this approach, the Supreme Court reiterated that bail conditions must have a direct nexus with the purpose of ensuring proper investigation or trial and cannot assume the character of final civil relief.
“The Court should refrain from imposing conditions which have no nexus with the object of granting bail and bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings,” the top court said, referring to its earlier ruling in Ramesh Kumar vs State (NCT of Delhi).
It added that directing sale of property as a bail condition is “in the nature of a final civil relief” affecting property rights and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
The Supreme Court held that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 nor the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers courts to order sale of immovable property belonging to an accused at the stage of bail or investigation for settlement of alleged claims.
“Condition imposed must not be arbitrary, fanciful and extend beyond the purpose of ensuring proper investigation or trial,” the Justice Kumar-led Bench added.
In its order, the apex court noted that the Madras High Court appeared to have been influenced by an undertaking made by the appellants’ counsel expressing willingness to sell the properties and deposit the amount.
However, the Justice Kumar-led Bench held that such an undertaking could not justify a judicial direction authorizing the sale of property, observing that “such conditions are alien to the provisions governing bail”.
Setting aside the impugned condition, the apex court clarified that while the appellants are at liberty to take appropriate steps to settle claims, the coercive direction to sell properties through the jurisdictional magistrate cannot be sustained.
However, the Supreme Court maintained the condition requiring deposit of title deeds to secure the presence of the accused and allowed the appeal.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
