Bail Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Recovery Proceedings; Court Can't Order Sale Of Accused's Property: Supreme Court

"Court should refrain from imposing the conditions which have no nexus with the object of granting bail and bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings." Supreme Court, in a latest ruling, held that the jurisdiction of a court while granting bail is strictly confined to ensuring a fair investigation or trial and cannot be extended to adjudicate civil rights or recover alleged dues.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that ordering the sale of an accused's property as a condition for bail is "punitive or determinative" and lacks a legal nexus with the object of bail.

The Court emphasized that bail conditions must be regulatory and not serve as a tool for the final adjudication of civil disputes. The bench noted that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, nor the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, empowers a court at the stage of bail to direct the sale of immovable property for the settlement of alleged claims.

The appellants were arrested in June 2025 in connection with FIR No. 11/2025 at CCB Police Station, Trichy, for alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After spending 83 days in custody, they approached the High Court, which granted them bail but imposed a condition directing the Judicial Magistrate to sell their immovable properties and distribute the proceeds among the complainant and others. The appellants challenged this specific condition before the Apex Court as being beyond the scope of Section 483 of the BNSS.

The primary question before the Court was whether a court, while exercising bail jurisdiction, can impose a condition directing the sale of the accused's immovable property to satisfy the complainant's claims. The Court was also called upon to determine whether an undertaking given by a counsel can empower a court to pass orders that are otherwise alien to bail provisions.

Bail Jurisdiction Limited To Ensuring Fair Trial

The Court clarified that the primary role of a bench during bail proceedings is to assess if the accused should be released pending trial. It emphasized that this jurisdiction "does not extend to adjudicate in civil rights or directing the recovery of alleged dues." The bench noted that bail conditions must strictly be regulatory in nature to ensure the presence of the accused and the integrity of the investigation.

Bail Proceedings Are Not Recovery Proceedings

Relying on the precedent set in Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of using bail orders to settle financial disputes. The bench noted that courts must refrain from imposing conditions that have no nexus with the object of granting bail. "Bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings," the Court reiterated, stressing that such conditions overstep the statutory boundaries of criminal law.

Condition To Sell Property Is Punitive And Determinative

The bench held that ordering the sale of property at the stage of bail is akin to granting a final civil relief, which directly affects the property rights of the accused. Citing Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reminded that the phrase "any condition" in bail provisions cannot be interpreted to allow the imposition of any arbitrary requirement. The condition must have a direct link to the fairness of the investigation.

"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."

No Power Under BNSS Or CrPC To Direct Sale At Investigation Stage

The Supreme Court categorically stated that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, nor the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers a court to direct the sale of immovable property at the stage of investigation. The Court cited Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra, noting that conditions must not be arbitrary or fanciful. Such directions, the bench observed, are "alien to the bail provisions."

Counsel’s Undertaking Cannot Overstep Legal Limits

Addressing the High Court's reasoning, the bench noted that the counsel for the appellants had volunteered an undertaking to sell the properties. However, the Court observed that this did not justify the High Court "tweaking" the bail provisions to direct a Magistrate to effectuate the sale. While the appellants remain at liberty to sell their properties voluntarily to settle claims, the court cannot mandate a judicial sale as a prerequisite for liberty.

"The condition insofar as it stipulates the sale of the properties by the jurisdictional Magistrate is set aside."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the condition directing the Magistrate to sell the properties and distribute the proceeds. However, the Court maintained the condition requiring the deposit of title deeds to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial. The appellants were granted liberty to take independent steps to settle the dues if they so chose.

Date of Decision: 13 April 2026