Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 981

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Ramratan @ Ramswaroop & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 4402 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10773 of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No(S).4403 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 14993 of 2024), Diary No. 40532 of 2024
Decided On : 25-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.a.g., Sr. Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Kushagra Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kirti Lal, Adv. Mr. Ritvik Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mrinmoi Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kirti Lal, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G., Sr. Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Kushagra Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arun Arora, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Ojusya Joshi, Adv. Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective – While deciding bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of Court to decide civil disputes as between parties.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Grant of bail – Imposition of conditions – Fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure accused's presence during investigation and trial – Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective – While deciding bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of Court to decide civil disputes as between parties – Court's discretion in imposing conditions must be guided by need to facilitate administration of justice, secure accused's presence, and prevent misuse of liberty to impede investigation or obstruct justice – Action by police to take possession of immovable property while second bail application of appellants was under consideration, reflects total lawlessness – Under no circumstances, can police be allowed to interfere with possession of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law – High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing conditions of demolishing wall at expense of appellants and handing over possession of disputed property to complainant – Conditions imposed clearly tantamount to deprivation of civil rights, rather than measures to ensure accused's presence during trial – Impugned conditions imposed by High Court set aside. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from order dated 25th July, 2024 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case. Vide impugned order, High Court granted bail to appellants, subject to certain conditions, including removal of a wall at their expense and also directed State of Madhya Pradesh to hand over possession of disputed property to complainant.
Findings of Court:
Appellants shall continue to remain on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety of like amount, to satisfaction of the trial Court. Other conditions imposed by High Court shall remain in force.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10773 of 2024

1. Leave Granted.

2. This appeal arises from an order dated 25th July, 2024,¹[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench,²[Hereinafter being referred to as ‘High Court’] in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 27154 of 2024. Vide the impugned order, the High Court granted bail to the appellants, subject to certain conditions, including the removal of a wall at their expense and also directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant,³[Mr. Ghanshyam Lashkari] (objector before the High Court).

3. The brief facts relevant and essential for the adjudication of the present appeal are as follows.

4. An FIR,⁴[FIR No. 539 of 2024] was lodged on 22nd April, 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 447, 147, 148, and Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,⁵[Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’] at Police Station Road, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant alleged that the appellants, along with others, had forcefully entered into his property after breaking a wall and assaulted his family members. In pursuance of the same, the appellants were arrested on 27th April, 2024. The appellant's First Bail Application,⁶[M.Cr.C. No. 22301 of 2024] was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29th May, 2024, with liberty to renew the prayer after the chargesheet was filed. The chargesheet was filed against the appellants on 20th June, 2024 under Sections 294, 323, 506, 447, 147, 148, 458, 149 and Section 326 IPC. Thereafter, the appellants preferred a Second Bail Application,⁷[M.Cr.C. No. 27154 of 2024], which came to be allowed vide the impugned order with the following observations:

6. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that as per information received, the disputed property is of the government only, and the keys are lying with the Collector, Ratlam. However, it is also submitted that the keys were handed over to the SHO of the concerned Police station by the Mahant of Ramsuchi Sampradayas.

7. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the 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. Needless to say that the accused persons shall not interfere in the possession of the registered owner of the property, which is in the name of the complainant Ghanshyam Lashkari, and shall also bear the expenses of clearing the main gates of the house facing the road.”

8. In view of the aforesaid, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with separate solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Criminal Procedure Code,1973. ”

(Emphasis supplied)

5. The appellants have filed the present appeal challengi