Release of pre-condition deposit to complainant requires strict adherence to security ownership and valuation requirements.

The applicant, Trilok Chand Chaudhary, was granted regular bail via order dated 19.12.2024 in a case involving Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC.

As a condition for bail, the applicant deposited ₹2 crores with the Registry.

The court directed the release of this sum to the complainant subject to the complainant furnishing an undertaking and providing details of a property "owned by him" to be kept unencumbered during the trial.

The complainant initially proposed a property in Sainik Farms, but a status report revealed he lacked a registered title deed, holding only an agreement to sell from 1992.

Subsequently, the complainant offered a property in Haridwar owned by a third-party surety (a friend), valued at approximately ₹1.14 crores.

1. Whether the complainant satisfied the bail condition of providing details of a property "owned by him" by submitting property documents based on an agreement to sell or belonging to a third-party surety.

2. Whether the court should release the deposited ₹2 crores when the proposed security's valuation (₹1.14 crores) is significantly lower than the amount to be released.

The court primarily applied the principle regarding property title established in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which holds that an agreement to sell does not confer absolute ownership or title.

The court also adhered to the doctrine of strict compliance with judicial conditions, necessitating that bail conditions must be met in their literal and intended sense unless formally modified.

The court reasoned that the prior order dated 19.12.2024 specifically mandated the property be "owned by" the complainant.

Regarding the Sainik Farms property, the court found the complainant’s claim of ownership insufficient as it was based solely on an unregistered agreement to sell, and the land remained recorded in the name of a third party in government records.

Regarding the Haridwar property, the court noted two fatal flaws: first, the property was owned by a third party (Sh. Manoj Doomra) rather than the complainant himself; and second, the official valuation of ₹1.14 crores failed to adequately secure the ₹2 crore deposit.

The court determined it would be inappropriate to "dilute or expand" the original bail conditions through the present proceedings.

The court directed that the ₹2 crores shall remain deposited with the Registry.

The complainant was granted liberty to file a separate application for clarification or modification of the original bail order if he seeks to suggest third-party surety or alternate security.

No further relief was granted at this stage.