Police's Action To Take Possession Of Immovable Property Without Sanction Of Law Reflects Lawlessness : Supreme Court
In a recent case, the Supreme Court disowned the police's action to take possession of the immovable property by taking keys of the property under an application filed by the litigant.
“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 possession of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law.”, the bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta said.
While holding so, the court also observed against the imposition of the onerous bail conditions by the Courts which tends to impact the ongoing civil disputes between the parties.
In this case, the appellants/accused were alleged to have committed criminal trespass into the complainant's house and then constructed the wall to seal the entry of the complainants. The High Court while granting bail to the accused put a condition that the police shall carry out a demolition exercise of the wall at the expense of the accused. Also, the High Court directed the police to hand over the keys to the premises to the complainants after the completion of the demolition exercise.
The second condition was resisted by the State stating that a Civil Suit was pending between the State and the complainant, his wife, and another litigant in which the State has sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction. According to the State, 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.
Setting aside the conditions put by the High Court, the court said that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by imposing onerous and unreasonable conditions unrelated to the grant of bail i.e., the direction for removal of the wall at the expense of the appellants/accused and handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant.
“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.”, the court observed.
The Court said that it would be impermissible to put such conditions which tantamount to deprivation of civil rights.
Given the aforementioned, the Court allowed the appeal setting aside the abovementioned two bail conditions.
Case Title: RAMRATAN @ RAMSWAROOP & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH