પોલીસ દ્વારા મિલકતનો કબજો લેવો એ 'સંપૂર્ણ કાયદાહીનતા': જામીન કેસમાં સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટની કડક ટિપ્પણી

પોલીસ દ્વારા મિલકતનો કબજો લેવો એ 'સંપૂર્ણ કાયદાહીનતા': જામીન કેસમાં સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટની કડક ટિપ્પણી  

રામરતન @ રામસ્વરૂપ વિરુદ્ધ મધ્ય પ્રદેશ રાજ્ય: જામીનની શરતો અને સિવિલ વિવાદો અંગે સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટનો ચુકાદો

કેસની પૃષ્ઠભૂમિ અને આરોપો:

આ કેસમાં અરજદારો (આરોપીઓ) વિરુદ્ધ મધ્ય પ્રદેશના રતલામમાં એપ્રિલ 2024માં FIR નોંધવામાં આવી હતી. તેમના પર આરોપ હતો કે તેઓએ બળજબરીથી એક મિલકતમાં પ્રવેશ કર્યો, દીવાલ તોડી અને પરિવારના સભ્યો પર હુમલો કર્યો. આ સંદર્ભમાં તેમના પર IPCની કલમ 294, 323, 447, 458 અને અન્ય કલમો હેઠળ ગુનો દાખલ કરવામાં આવ્યો હતો.  

હાઈકોર્ટનો વિવાદાસ્પદ આદેશ:

જ્યારે આરોપીઓએ બીજી વખત જામીન માટે અરજી કરી, ત્યારે મધ્ય પ્રદેશ હાઈકોર્ટે તેમને જામીન તો આપ્યા, પરંતુ કેટલીક કડક શરતો લાદી. હાઈકોર્ટે આદેશ આપ્યો કે આરોપીઓએ પોતાના ખર્ચે મિલકતની સામેની દીવાલ હટાવવી પડશે અને મિલકતની ચાવીઓ (કબજો) ફરિયાદીને સોંપવી પડશે.  

સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટ સમક્ષ અરજદારોની દલીલ:

આરોપીઓએ આ શરતોને સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટમાં પડકારી હતી. તેમની દલીલ હતી કે જામીન આપતી વખતે આવી શરતો લાદવી એ હાઈકોર્ટના અધિકારક્ષેત્રની બહાર છે. વધુમાં, જે મિલકત અંગે વિવાદ છે, તેના માટે પહેલેથી જ સિવિલ કોર્ટમાં દાવો પેન્ડિંગ છે, તેથી જામીન દ્વારા કબજો સોંપવાનો આદેશ ખોટો છે.  

સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટનું નિરીક્ષણ અને કાયદાકીય સિદ્ધાંતો:

સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે જણાવ્યું કે જામીનનો મુખ્ય હેતુ એ સુનિશ્ચિત કરવાનો છે કે આરોપી તપાસ અને ટ્રાયલ દરમિયાન હાજર રહે. કોર્ટે અગાઉના ચુકાદાઓને ટાંકીને કહ્યું કે:  

• જામીનની શરતો વ્યાજબી હોવી જોઈએ અને તે કેસના તથ્યો સાથે સુસંગત હોવી જોઈએ.  
• ફોજદારી અદાલત જામીન આપતી વખતે 'રિકવરી એજન્ટ' તરીકે કામ ન કરી શકે.  
• જામીન પ્રક્રિયા દરમિયાન પક્ષકારો વચ્ચેના સિવિલ (દીવાની) વિવાદોનો ઉકેલ લાવવો એ અદાલતનું કામ નથી.  

પોલીસની ભૂમિકા પર કોર્ટની ટિપ્પણી:

સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે એ બાબતની પણ ગંભીર નોંધ લીધી કે પોલીસે મિલકતની ચાવીઓનો કબજો લીધો હતો. કોર્ટે આને "સંપૂર્ણ કાયદાહીનતા" (total lawlessness) ગણાવી અને કહ્યું કે પોલીસને આવી રીતે સ્થાવર મિલકતના કબજામાં દખલ કરવાનો કોઈ કાયદાકીય અધિકાર નથી.  

અંતિમ ચુકાદો:

સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે હાઈકોર્ટ દ્વારા લાદવામાં આવેલી 'દીવાલ તોડવાની' અને 'કબજો સોંપવાની' શરતોને રદ કરી દીધી. કોર્ટે સ્પષ્ટ કર્યું કે આરોપીઓ જામીન પર રહેશે, પરંતુ તેમણે સિવિલ વિવાદના પરિણામોને અસર કર્યા વગર માત્ર ટ્રાયલમાં હાજર રહેવું પડશે.  

એક પેરેગ્રાફમાં સમજૂતી

આ ચુકાદામાં સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે સ્પષ્ટ કર્યું છે કે જામીન આપતી વખતે અદાલતોએ મિલકતના કબજા અથવા સિવિલ વિવાદોના નિકાલ જેવી અતિશય અને ગેરવાજબી શરતો લાદવી જોઈએ નહીં. અદાલતે મધ્ય પ્રદેશ હાઈકોર્ટના એ આદેશને રદ કર્યો જેમાં આરોપીઓને મિલકતની દીવાલ તોડવા અને કબજો ફરિયાદીને સોંપવા જણાવાયું હતું, કારણ કે જામીનનો હેતુ માત્ર ન્યાયિક પ્રક્રિયામાં આરોપીની હાજરી સુનિશ્ચિત કરવાનો છે, નહીં કે સિવિલ હકો છીનવવાનો. આ સાથે કોર્ટે પોલીસ દ્વારા મિલકતનો કબજો લેવાની કાર્યવાહીને પણ ગેરકાયદેસર ગણાવી છે.  

Ramratan@Ramswaroop vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25

October, 2024

Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Bench: C.T. Ravikumar, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

2024 INSC 826 NON-REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 4402 OF 2024

 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10773 of 2024)

 RAMRATAN @ RAMSWAROOP & ANR. .…APPELLANT(S)

 VERSUS

 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….RESPONDENT(S)

 WITH

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).4403 OF 2024

 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 14993 of 2024)

 Diary No. 40532/2024

 JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

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

1. Leave Granted.

2. This appeal arises from an order dated 25th July, 20241 passed by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, Indore Bench2 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 27154 of 2024. Vide the impugned

order, the High Court granted bail to the appellants, 1 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘Impugned

Order’ 2 Hereinafter being referred to as ‘High Court’ 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 complainant3(objector before the High Court).

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

4. An FIR4 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, 18605 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 Application6

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. 3 Mr. Ghanshyam

Lashkari 5 Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’ Thereafter, the appellants preferred a Second

Bail Application7, which came to be allowed vide the impugned order with the following

observations:

“5 .Prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the objector and it is submitted

that as per the complainant’s information, they have still not received the keys of the

disputed property and even otherwise, since the accused persons have already sealed

the gates by constructing a wall, and the entry in the aforesaid house is from the

premises of the accused persons only, hence, the complainant would not be able to

enter into the premises.

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 Section437(3) Criminal Procedure

Code,1973. ” (Emphasis supplied)

5. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the onerous conditions imposed by the

High Court while granting the bail to them vide the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel representing the appellants submitted that the conditions imposed by the High

Court are excessive and beyond the scope of bail proceedings.

7. It was submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 437(3) and Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19738 by imposing onerous conditions that goes beyond

ensuring the presence of the accused during investigation and trial.

8. It was further submitted that the High Court's order to hand over the keys of the disputed

property to the complainant has prejudiced the ongoing Civil Suit9 between the State of Madhya

Pradesh and the complainant, his wife, and Mahant Pushpraj 8 Hereinafter being referred to as the

‘CrPC’ 9 RCSA No. 2019 of 2024, for declaration and permanent injunction against the complainant

[Ghanshyam Lashkari], his wife [Durga Lashkari] and Mahant Pushparaj seeking cancellation of a

deed dated 21.07.2011.

titled “Government of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh v. Mrs. Durga

Lashkari and Ors.”.

9. Learned standing counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh affirmed that a Civil Suit10 is pending

between the State and the complainant, his wife, and Mahant Pushpraj in which the State has

sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction. As per the learned counsel for the State,

while deciding the bail application, the High Court ought not to have ventured into the civil dispute

inter se between the parties, as the order to deliver the possession of the property to the

complainant(who is the defendant in the pending suit for title declaration), is bound to have

prejudicial consequences on the civil rights of the parties.

10. Mr. Puneet Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that looking at the

fact that the appellants had forcibly broken into the premises of the complainant being the

registered owner of the property and caused injuries to him and his family members, the High Court

was fully justified in imposing the conditions as set out 10 Supra, Note 9 in the impugned order,

while extending indulgence of bail to the appellants.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issue that requires our attention is as to

whether the High Court exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 439 CrPC by

imposing onerous and unreasonable conditions unrelated to the grant of bail, to be specific, the

direction for removal of the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over possession of the

disputed property to the complainant.

12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and

trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in

“Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra and Another11” observed that though the

competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of

bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the

need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused 11 (2020) 10 SCC 77 to impede the investigation, overawe

the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition …

otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this

Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose

“any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the

discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of

justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused

is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the

course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the

conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and

anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied)

13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi)12, this Court discussed the scope of the

discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in

the following terms:-

“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as

conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to

impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in

the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and

should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts

and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12 (2013) 15 SCC 570

14. This Court in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another13, laid down the factors to be

taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed:

“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings

are not for realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the

prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the

particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an

application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in

the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat

to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence

of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character,

behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or

the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other

considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory

bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant,

15. In Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Others14, this Court observed that while deciding a bail

application, it is not the jurisdiction of the Court to decide civil disputes as between the parties. The

relevant part is extracted hereinbelow:

“3. As a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court has recorded the

undertaking of the petitioners to pay to the victim daughter-in-law a sum of Rs 2000

per month and failure to do so would result in vacation of the order 13 (2021) 2 SCC

779 14 (2006) 6 SCC 196 granting bail. We notice that the applicants before the High

Court were the jeth and jethani of the victim. We fail to understand how they can be

made liable to deposit Rs 2000 per month for the maintenance of the victim.

Moreover, while deciding a bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of the court to

decide civil disputes as between the parties. We, therefore, remit the matter to the

High Court to consider the bail application afresh on merit and to pass an

appropriate order without imposing any condition of the nature imposed by the

impugned order.

(Emphasis supplied)

16. This Court has consistently emphasised that the Court's discretion in imposing conditions must

be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the accused's presence, and

prevent the misuse of liberty to impede the investigation or obstruct justice.

17. Having gone through the impugned order, particularly the observations made by the High Court

in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 15, 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

under an alleged voluntary application filed by the Mahant of Ram Suchi Sampradaya. 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 15 Supra, Para 4 possession

of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law.

18. Therefore, we conclude that the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in para 7 of the

impugned order 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.

19. In this case, the conditions imposed clearly tantamount to deprivation of civil rights, rather than

measures to ensure the accused's presence during trial. Therefore, the conditions imposed by the

High Court in the highlighted extract of paragraph 716 of the impugned order, are hereby set aside.

20. We further make it clear that none of the observations made in the order dated 25th July, 2024,

or this order shall prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending civil suit17.

21. The appellants shall continue to remain on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 16 Supra,

Para 4 Supra, Note 9

22. The other conditions imposed by the High Court shall remain in force.

23. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.

24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) Diary

No. 40532/2024

25. Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

26. Leave granted.

27. The appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10773

of 2024.

28. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

………………….……….J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) .………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

October 25, 2024