In a recent case, the Supreme Court denied the action of the police to take possession of the property by taking the keys of the property based on a request submitted by the litigant.

“We believe that this action by the police to take possession of real estate reflects total illegality. Under no circumstances can the police be allowed to interfere with the possession of immovable property, as such action is not sanctioned by any provision of law.”bank including Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

While holding this, the court also observed against the imposition by the courts of onerous bail conditions which tends to affect civil litigation pending between the parties.

In this case, the plaintiffs/defendants were alleged to have committed a criminal offense in the plaintiff’s house and then built the wall to seal off the plaintiffs’ entry. The High Court, while granting bail to the accused, made it a condition that the police carry out an exercise to demolish the wall at the expense of the accused. The High Court also ordered the police to hand over the keys to the premises to the plaintiffs after completion of the demolition exercise.

The second condition was resisted by the State, which asserted that a civil suit was pending between the State and the plaintiff, his wife, and another litigant in which the State sought a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. According to the state, the High Court should not have ventured into the inter se civil litigation between the parties, since the order to hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff (who is the defendant in the pending process for the declaration of ownership), is bound to have prejudicial consequences on the rights civil rights of the parties.

Dismissing the conditions imposed by the High Court, the court said that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Cr.PC by imposing onerous and unreasonable conditions unrelated to the grant of bail, i.e. the direction to remove the wall at the expense of the appellants/ to the defendant and delivery of possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff.

“This Court has consistently emphasized that the Court’s discretion in imposing conditions must be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and prevent the abuse of liberty to obstruct the investigation or obstruct justice. “ the court observed.

The Court said that it would be impermissible to impose such conditions which amount to the deprivation of civil rights.

Considering the aforementioned, the Court admitted the appeal with the cancellation of the two conditions mentioned above.

Case Title: RAMRATAN @ RAMSWAROOP & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Click here to read/download the decision