Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Feroze Basha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 April, 2026
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2026
@ SLP (CRL) NOS.6155/2026
FEROZE BASHA & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. A complaint came to be lodged on 04.06.2025
alleging cheating and misappropriation of money which
culminated in registration of FIR No.11/2025 at CCB
Police Station, Trichy, against appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Appellants were arrested and have remained in
custody for 83 days during investigation stage. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
bail application came to be rejected by the
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.04.17
16:39:37 IST
Reason:
jurisdictional Sessions Court and before the High
1
Court, it was allowed and by the impugned order, the
interim bail which was granted earlier was made
absolute with a direction to the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Trichy, to sell the properties of
the appellants and distribute the sale proceeds
amongst the complainant and similarly placed persons.
5. Hence, challenging the condition of directing
the sale of immovable property as beyond the power
vested under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants are before
this Court.
6. At the outset, we would like to make it
expressly clear that the jurisdiction of a Court
while considering the bail is confined to assess
whether the accused should be released pending
investigation or trial and to impose conditions to
ensure fair investigation or trial, and as such it
does not extend to adjudicate in civil rights or
directing the recovery of alleged dues.
7. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. The
State of NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1741/2023
@ of SLP (Crl.) No.2358/2023 decided on 04.07.2023
has opined or in other words expressly deprecated the
practice of imposing such conditions and observed
“the Court should refrain from imposing the
2
conditions which have no nexus with the object of
granting bail and bail proceedings cannot be
converted into recovery proceedings”. In fact, it has
been held by this Court that bail condition must be
regulatory and not punitive or determinative, as such
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.
8. It has been held in the case of Sumit Mehta Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2013) 15 SCC 570
to the effect:
“The words ‘any condition’ found in the
bail provision cannot be interpreted to be
where the Court can impose any condition
whatsoever. The condition must have nexus
to the fairness of investigation
inquired.”
9. Reiterating the above proposition we are of
considered opinion that neither Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 nor Code of criminal
Procedure, 1973 would enable a Court at the stage of
bail or investigation to direct the sale of
immovable property belonging to accused for
settlement of alleged claims. In the case of Parvez
Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra And
Another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 77, this Court has
reiterated the said position as under:
3
“Condition imposed must not be arbitrary,
fanciful and extend beyond the purpose of
ensuring proper investigation or trial.”
10. We reiterate the proposition that the
jurisdiction of Court while granting bail is not to
decide the civil rights or disputes or imposed
conditions which virtually grant the final civil
relief which the complainant may be urging. Such
conditions would be alien to the bail provisions as
held by this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Vs.
State of U.P. And Others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC
196.
11. Keeping the aforestated principles in mind when
we turn our attention to the facts on hand, it would
clearly indicate that on 02.09.2025, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants who was seeking
for grant of bail in favour of the appellants,
himself volunteered and “undertook to sell the
properties and deposit the amount”. This seems to
have prompted the learned High Court to arrive at the
conclusion that the properties of the appellants is
to be sold and in the endeavour of doing substantial
justice has tweaked the bail provisions by directing
the learned Magistrate himself to sell the properties
of the appellant and pay the proceeds of the sale to
4
the victims which was not warranted. On this ground
itself, the impugned order imposing the condition of
selling the properties of the appellants for grant of
bail not being warranted is set aside. At this
juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that all attempts are being
made to sell the properties and pay the amounts to
the complainant and similarly placed persons. His
submission is placed on record. The appellants would
be at liberty to take such appropriate steps as they
deem fit. The condition imposed for depositing the
title deeds of the properties to secure the presence
of the accused remains intact and the condition
insofar as it stipulates, the sale of the properties
by the appellant by the jurisdictional Magistrate is
set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………..J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
……………..J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 13, 2026.
5
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s).6155/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 19-01-2026 in CRLOP(MD) No.14319/2025 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai]
FEROZE BASHA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent(s)
IA No. 105095/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 105097/2026 – EXEMPTION
FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 13-04-2026 This matter was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. E Mohammed Abbas, Adv.
Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR
Mr. M Laxmi Mahendraa, Adv.
Mr. U Kathiravan, Adv.
Mr. Abbas, B, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed
Order placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(NEHA GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
6
[ad_1]
Source link
