List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, in the case of Feroze Basha & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026), held that a court cannot impose a condition directing the sale of an accused's immovable property as part of a bail order. Setting aside a Madras High Court order that had imposed such a condition, the court reiterated that bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings, and that bail conditions must bear a direct nexus with the object of granting bail.

What was the Background of Feroze Basha & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026) Case? 

• A complaint was registered on June 4, 2025, alleging cheating and misappropriation of funds, leading to the registration of an FIR against the appellant-accused and another person. 
• They were booked under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), and 420 (cheating) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. 
• The accused were arrested and remained in custody for 83 days during investigation. 
• The Sessions Court rejected their bail application. 
• The Madras High Court granted bail but imposed a condition directing the Judicial Magistrate to sell the accused's immovable properties and distribute the proceeds among the complainant and similarly placed victims. 
• The accused approached the Supreme Court challenging this condition.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Sale of Property as Bail Condition Impermissible: 

• Neither the BNSS, 2023 nor the CrPC, 1973 empowers a court, at the stage of bail or investigation, to direct the sale of immovable property belonging to an accused for settlement of alleged claims. 
• Ordering the sale of property as a bail condition amounts to granting a final civil relief, which directly affects property rights and cannot be sustained. 

Bail Conditions Must Have Nexus with Object of Bail: 

• It is impermissible for a court to impose bail conditions that have no nexus with the object of granting bail. 
• Bail conditions must not be punitive or determinative in nature, and cannot deprive an accused of the right to use their own property. 

Bail Proceedings Cannot Become Recovery Proceedings: 

• The High Court, in imposing the impugned condition, effectively went beyond its bail jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil dispute between the parties — the very property in question being the subject matter of a pending civil suit. 
• Relying on Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. & Others (2006), the court reiterated that the jurisdiction of a court while granting bail does not extend to deciding civil rights or disputes, nor to imposing conditions that virtually grant final civil relief sought by the complainant. 

Order Set Aside: 

• The appeal was allowed and the impugned condition directing the sale of the appellants' properties was set aside as wholly unwarranted.

What is Bail & its Types? 

About Bail: 

• Bail, a legal provision within the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) facilitates release from prison pending trial or appeal upon depositing security.  
• Bailable offences guarantee the right to bail, as per Section 436 of the CrPC, while non-bailable offences grant discretion to courts or designated police officers, as outlined in Section 437.  
• Justice V R Krishna Iyer in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) held that the basic rule is bail, not jail. It referred to a concept which is ‘Bail is a Right and Jail is an exception”.

Types of Bail: 

• Regular Bail: It is a direction given by the Court (any Court within the country) to release a person who is already under arrest and kept in police custody.  
• Interim Bail: Bail granted for a temporary and short period by the Court till the application seeking Anticipatory Bail or Regular Bail is pending before a Court.   
• Anticipatory Bail: It is a legal provision that allows an accused person to apply for bail before being arrested. In India, pre-arrest bail is granted under section 438 of the CrPC It is issued only by the Sessions Court and High Court. 
• What are the Provisions concerning Bail under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?  
• Chapter 35 of BNSS provides for provisions as to Bail and Bonds. 

What are the Bail Conditions in India? 

• Bond: A written promise by the accused to appear for trial and follow bail conditions. It usually requires a cash deposit (amount based on crime and economic condition). 
• Cash deposit can be forfeited if bail conditions are broken. It is refundable at the end of the trial, regardless of the outcome. 
• If the accused cannot pay immediately, the court may allow release on a Personal Recognisance (PR) Bond, with time given to arrange the cash. 
• Bail Bond: A bail bond is a guarantee from a third party (family, friend, or employer) ensuring the accused complies with bail conditions and appears for trial.  
• The surety may deposit a sum forfeitable if the accused absconds. Courts verify the surety’s documents, finances, and residence, with some requiring a solvency certificate.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News? 

A bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justice Harisankar V. Menon, in the case of Prasanth P. Kumar and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2026), held that a Lok Adalat can settle disputes of any pecuniary value falling within its territorial jurisdiction, since Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 does not impose any pecuniary restriction on Lok Adalats.  

• The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an award passed by the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Committee on the grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

What was the Background of Prasanth P. Kumar and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners and the party respondent had entered into an agreement for sale, pursuant to which the respondent paid an advance amount of more than ₹98 lakhs. 
• The sale did not materialise, and the petitioners failed to refund the advance amount, compelling the respondent to institute a complaint before the Taluk Legal Services Authority. 
• The petitioners were directed to appear via telephone and did so along with a lawyer. Thereafter, the impugned award was passed, recording the petitioners' undertaking to refund the advance amount, and post-dated cheques were handed over to the respondent. 
• The cheques were subsequently dishonoured, and the respondent filed an execution petition to enforce the award. 
• The petitioners objected to the execution petition and approached the High Court challenging the award on grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Allegation of Fraud: 

• The Court rejected the allegation of fraud, noting that the petitioners themselves admitted there was no coercion for their appearance. 
• The petitioners had appeared before the Lok Adalat along with a lawyer, which negated any claim of undue pressure or misrepresentation. 
• Mere direction to appear at short notice, and participation in the compromise thereafter, cannot constitute fraud. 

On Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Lok Adalats: 

• The petitioners argued that the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Committee lacked jurisdiction since Adoor Taluk did not have a Sub-Court, and therefore no suit of the relevant pecuniary value could have been instituted there. 
• The Court rejected this contention, holding that Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 prescribes only territorial jurisdiction for Lok Adalats and makes no reference to pecuniary jurisdiction. 
• Accordingly, a Lok Adalat can settle disputes of any pecuniary value, provided the matter falls within its territorial limits. 
• The Court also referred to similar positions of law laid down by the Andhra Pradesh and Kerala High Courts in earlier decisions.

What are Lok Adalats?