The Supreme Court has held that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 nor the 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 the accused for settlement of alleged claims. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the condition imposed by the Madras High Court directing the sale of the appellants’ properties as a condition for granting bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court observed, “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.” It further clarified, “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 case arose from a complaint lodged on 04.06.2025 alleging cheating and misappropriation of money, which culminated in registration of FIR No.11/2025 at CCB Police Station, Trichy, against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants were arrested and remained in custody for 83 days during the investigation stage. While the jurisdictional Sessions Court rejected their bail application, the Madras High Court allowed it and made the interim bail absolute with a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy, to sell the properties of the appellants and distribute the sale proceeds amongst the complainant and similarly placed persons. Challenging this condition as being beyond the power vested under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the Supreme Court made 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 to impose conditions to ensure fair investigation or trial, and as such it does not extend to adjudicate in civil rights or directing the recovery of alleged dues. The Court referred to its earlier decisions, including Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Sumit Mehta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), and observed that the words “any condition” found in the bail provision cannot be interpreted to mean that the Court can impose any condition whatsoever. The condition must have nexus to the fairness of investigation or trial. Reiterating the proposition laid down in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra And Another, the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court while granting bail is not to decide the civil rights or disputes or impose conditions which virtually grant the final civil relief which the complainant may be urging. Such conditions would be alien to the bail provisions.

Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, the Supreme Court examined the facts on hand and found that the condition imposed by the High Court directing the sale of the appellants’ properties was not warranted. It noted that on 02.09.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants who was seeking grant of bail in favour of the appellants himself volunteered and undertook to sell the properties and deposit the amount. This seems to have prompted the learned High Court to arrive at the conclusion that the properties of the appellants is to be sold and in the endeavour of doing substantial justice has tweaked the bail provisions by directing the learned Magistrate himself to sell the properties of the appellant and pay the proceeds of the sale to the victims which was not warranted. On this ground itself, the impugned order imposing the condition of selling the properties of the appellants for grant of bail not being warranted is set aside. The condition imposed for depositing the title deeds of the properties to secure the presence of the accused remains intact and the condition insofar as it stipulates the sale of the properties by the jurisdictional Magistrate is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Case Title: Feroze Basha & Anr. Versus State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 INSC (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6155/2026)
Date of Order: 13 April 2026

Click HERE to read the ORDER.