1. Appeal against a condition imposed by the High Court while granting bail under Section 439, Cr. PC, requiring the handover of property possession to the complainant. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1570
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA AND MANMOHAN, JJ.
Najma And Others – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector Of Police And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1693 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7020 of 2019]
Decided on : 01-04-2025
The Supreme Court held that while granting bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC, a court cannot impose conditions requiring the restoration of possession of property to a complainant, as such conditions effectively act as a civil decree, which is impermissible in bail proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Condition to restore possession imposed by High Court deemed unlawful as such a condition cannot be set during bail proceedings - Several precedents discussed including Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and St. George Dsouza vs. State (NCT of Delhi) establish legal clarity on the matter. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
(B) Mediation - Parties encouraged to explore mediated settlement opportunities.
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought bail from the High Court, which granted bail but with a condition for possession restoration, leading to this appeal focusing on that condition.
Findings of Court:
The court clarified that the High Court's condition was not permissible in a bail order and allowed the appeal.
Issues: The legality of imposing restoration of possession conditions in bail orders was paramount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the High Court cannot impose a condition in a bail order that seeks to restore possession and can only address bail criteria.
Result: Appeal allowed and the offending condition set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the legality of a bail condition requiring the restoration of property possession to the de facto complainant. (Para 2 )
3. A court granting bail under Section 439, Cr. PC cannot impose conditions that effectively amount to passing a decree for the restoration of possession. (Para 3 )
4. A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 439, Cr. PC is not empowered to pass a decree for the restoration of possession of property. (Para 3 )
5. The impugned bail condition is set aside, the appeal is allowed, and parties are directed to mediation or civil litigation for possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Can a court impose a condition for the restoration of property possession while granting bail under Section 439, Cr. PC?
No, a court while hearing an application for bail under Section 439, Cr. PC is not supposed to pass a decree for the restoration of possession. (Para 3 )
7. What is the appropriate legal remedy for a complainant seeking recovery of property possession when a bail condition is set aside?
The de facto complainant is at liberty to pursue the channel of civil litigation to seek the recovery of possession. (Para 8 )
8. May parties in a criminal matter explore a mediated settlement for related disputes?
Yes, the court may permit private parties to approach a Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement. (Para 6 , 7 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants were the petitioners before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court, vide judgment and order dated July 25, 2019, granted the appellants' prayer for bail under Section 439 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[Cr. PC] but with a condition. The appellants have been required by such condition to handover possession of a ground floor and half of a portion namely 400 sq. ft. constructed area and the entire second floor to the de facto complainant within a period of two weeks. This appeal, directed against the said order, is restricted to such condition only.
3. The impugned condition is numbered as 9 [b]. Undoubtedly, such a condition could not have been imposed by the High Court while granting bail. The High Court, while hearing an application under Section 439 , Cr. PC is not supposed to pass a decree for restoration of possession. In several decisions of this Court, viz. Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , (2023) 7 SCC 461 , St. George Dsouza vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1940 and Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. , (2021) 2 SCC 779 as well as the decisions referred to therein, the legal position has been made clear.
4. The offending condition for grant of bail, that is, condition no. 9 [b] is, accordingly, set aside. Interim protection, granted earlier, is made absolute.
5. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed.
6. This order shall, however, not preclude the private parties to approach the Mediation Centre attached to the High Court. We record that both sides are agreeable to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement.
7. In such view of the matter, the private parties may appear before the Mediator, Mediation Centre of the High Court on 30th April, 2025.
8. Should no settlement be arrived at before the Mediator, the de facto complainant shall be at liberty to pursue the channel of civil litigation seeking, inter alia, recovery of possession.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
