In a noteworthy ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that while deciding a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a High Court cannot impose conditions amounting to restoration of possession or decide civil property disputes. The ruling came in the case of Najma & Ors. vs The Inspector of Police & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025, arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 7020 of 2019.
Background of the Case
Najma and others, the appellants, had approached the Supreme Court challenging a condition imposed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its order dated July 25, 2019, in Crl.OP No. 15084/2019. The High Court had granted bail under Section 439 CrPC but directed the appellants to hand over possession of part of a disputed property — specifically the ground floor, a 400 sq. ft. constructed area, and the entire second floor — to the de facto complainant within two weeks.
The appellants contended that such a condition amounted to granting a civil remedy and was beyond the scope of powers exercisable under Section 439.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether a High Court, while granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, can impose a condition requiring the accused to hand over possession of immovable property to the complainant?
Supreme Court’s Findings
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan emphatically held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction.
“The High Court, while hearing an application under Section 439 CrPC, is not supposed to pass a decree for restoration of possession,” the Court said, calling such an imposition “undoubtedly” beyond the scope of the court’s powers under the criminal bail jurisdiction.
The apex court relied on its prior rulings in 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], which had clarified that criminal courts should not adjudicate on civil property rights while dealing with bail.
The Court specifically struck down condition no. 9[b] of the High Court’s order, which mandated the handing over of property.
“The offending condition for grant of bail, that is, condition no. 9[b], is accordingly set aside,” the Court ruled.
Further, it made the earlier interim protection granted to the appellants absolute, allowing the appeal.
Possibility of Civil Remedies or Mediation
Importantly, the Court left the door open for civil recourse or mediated settlement:
“This order shall, however, not preclude the private parties to approach the Mediation Centre attached to the High Court… The de facto complainant shall be at liberty to pursue the channel of civil litigation seeking, inter alia, recovery of possession.”
The Court also recorded the willingness of both parties to explore mediation and scheduled their appearance before the Mediation Centre of the Madras High Court on April 30, 2025.
Representation
For Appellants (Najma & Ors.):
- Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy (AOR)
- Mr. C. Raghavendren, Advocate
- Mrs. C. Rubavathi, Advocate
For Respondents:
- Mr. Sabarish Subramanian (AOR)
- Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Mr. Danish Saifi
- Mr. Ratnakar Dash (Senior Advocate)
- Mr. Shilp Vinod (AOR), Mr. Nawaz Sheriff, Mr. Arun Prakash
