The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot, under any circumstances, take possession of citizens' immovable property as a condition of bail, overturning a bail condition imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which it deemed "onerous."

A bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized that such actions by the police would promote "lawlessness" and result in the "deprivation of civil rights."

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the bail condition imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, requiring police to take possession of the property, was inappropriate, as it intersected with an ongoing civil dispute. The appellants argued that this criminal matter stemmed from a civil disagreement, with a related civil suit already pending in a civil court.

The dispute revolves around competing claims to a property, reportedly a building, where the plaintiffs had constructed a wall to prevent the defendant in the civil suit from taking possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that such a bail condition encroached upon issues under the purview of the civil court, cautioning that allowing police involvement in the property’s possession could lead to “lawlessness” and an infringement of civil rights.

Following the civil dispute, the claimants faced criminal charges, including trespass and criminal intimidation, leading to their arrest and detention. When their bail plea was presented before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, bail was granted on July 25 but came with several conditions. Among these, the court directed the police to take possession of the disputed property, demolish the wall—at the accused's expense—and transfer possession to the opposing party.

The Supreme Court found this condition excessive, ruling that it went beyond the criminal matter at hand and interfered with a civil dispute that was already under adjudication in the civil court. The bench underscored that enforcing such conditions could lead to “lawlessness” and infringe upon civil rights.

“…The (bail) applicants are already in jail since 27.04.2024 and they have already handed over the possession of the property to the concerned police station. In such circumstances, respondent/ State is directed to remove the wall in front of the gates facing the road at the expense of the applicants, and its keys be also handed over to the complainant positively within a period of 15 days,” the high court order said. It said the accused “shall also bear the expenses of clearing the main gates of the house facing the road”.

The Supreme Court set aside the bail condition, granting an appeal filed by one of the accused, Ramratan. Justice Sandeep Mehta, who authored the judgment, noted, “We find that while the second bail application of the appellants was under consideration, it was the police who took possession of the keys of the immovable property…” 

The court emphasized that imposing such a condition overstepped legal boundaries, as it placed the police in control of disputed property, thus interfering in a matter that was already pending resolution in a civil court.

“We believe that this action by the police to take possession of immovable property reflects total lawlessness. Under no circumstances can the police be allowed to interfere with the possession of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law.”

The state of Madhya Pradesh also challenged the high court's order, contending that the high court should not have interfered in the civil dispute by directing that possession of the property be granted to the complainant as part of the bail conditions.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the primary purpose of bail, which inherently comes with conditions, is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. The court emphasized that any bail conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective, reinforcing the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between criminal proceedings and civil disputes.

“Therefore, we conclude that the high court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction… by imposing the conditions of demolishing the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant,” it said.

“In this case, the conditions imposed (are) clearly tantamount to deprivation of civil rights, rather than measures to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. Therefore, the conditions… are hereby set aside.”

It added: “The other conditions (such as bail bonds and sureties) imposed by the high court shall remain in force.”