There is no bail bond in Türkiye, but a judge can take a deposit.

The question families ask from abroad is almost always framed as a price: how much to pay to get him out. Turkish criminal procedure does not answer that question, because it does not work that way. Under CMK 109/1, where the grounds for detention set out in CMK 100 are present, the judge may place the suspect under adlî kontrol — judicial control — instead of remanding them. Judicial control is a list of obligations in CMK 109/3. One of them, sub-paragraph (f), is the payment of a security sum.

The sequence matters. The judge first has to be satisfied that release under conditions is defensible on the file; only then does the deposit become relevant, as one of the conditions. An offer of money made to a court that considers detention necessary does not convert that decision. It is an argument about which measure is adequate, not an argument about price.

That is also where the offer does its work. CMK 101/2-d requires an order for detention — or for its continuation, or refusing release — to show, on concrete facts, why judicial control would be insufficient. A concrete, funded, immediately payable deposit is directed squarely at that finding. It is harder to write that nothing short of detention will do when a specific sum is on the table together with a passport surrender and a reporting condition.

CMK 109/3-f gives the judge two variables and one criterion. The variables are the amount and the payment schedule — the Code expressly allows payment in one sum or in several instalments, with the periods fixed in the order. The criterion is the suspect's financial position, which the judge is required to take into account. The decision is made by the judge on the public prosecutor's application; during the investigation stage that is the sulh ceza hâkimliği, on the prosecutor's request, at any point in the investigation (CMK 110/1). After the indictment, the trial court applies the same provisions (CMK 110/3).

There is no statutory tariff and no scale keyed to the offence. The Code sets no minimum, no maximum, and no percentage of anything — not of the alleged loss, not of the value of seized goods, not of the expected fine. Anyone quoting you a fixed figure for a category of case is not reading the Code. In practice the number is argued, and it is argued with documents: proof of income, of assets, of who is actually funding the payment, and of what the family can realistically produce within days rather than months.

Two neighbouring obligations are often confused with the deposit and are legally distinct:

• CMK 109/3-h — a separate sum, again fixed by the judge on the prosecutor's application as to amount and payment period, secured by real or personal security, specifically to safeguard the victim's rights.
• CMK 109/3-i — an undertaking to meet family obligations and to pay maintenance ordered by a court regularly.

A deposit is also rarely ordered alone. It is normally combined with CMK 109/3-a, the prohibition on leaving the country, and with 109/3-b, regular reporting to a designated authority at fixed intervals. If you are planning around a deposit, plan around the travel ban that will come with it — that restriction, not the money, is usually what shapes the following months.

CMK 113 states exactly what the security guarantees, and the list is narrower than most people assume. It secures, first, the suspect's or accused person's presence at all procedural steps, at the execution of any sentence, and for the other obligations they may be placed under. Second, it secures payments, in this order:

The practical consequence is in CMK 113/2: the order requiring the security must state separately which parts the security covers. That apportionment is not a formality. It determines how much of the money is treated as securing attendance and how much is earmarked for payments — and, as the next section shows, the two parts are returned on different conditions. An order that fails to make the split is worth challenging at the time rather than at the end.

One further provision to know before paying: under CMK 114, the judge, court or prosecutor may order that the parts of the security covering the victim's rights or a maintenance debt be paid out to the victim or maintenance creditor — with the suspect's consent, or, where a judicial decision has already been made in the victim's favour arising from the same events, without that consent. Money paid out under CMK 114 is gone from the deposit before the case ends.

The deposit is not paid to a lawyer, an agent or a bail company. It is paid into the account of the judicial authority named in the order, against a receipt, and the receipt is filed on the case so that the release condition is recorded as satisfied. Release does not follow the transfer automatically — it follows the file showing that the condition in the order has been met, which is why the deadline in the order and the day the funds actually clear are the two dates that matter.

Practical points that repeatedly cause delay when the family is abroad:

• The order sets the deadline, not you. Where instalments are permitted under CMK 109/3-f, the periods are fixed in the decision. An international transfer arriving after the stated date is a missed condition, not a late payment.
• The payer and the depositor are different questions. A relative may provide the funds; the security is still recorded against the suspect, and it is the suspect's conduct that decides whether it comes back. Whoever sends the money should understand that they are not a party to the case and acquire no claim on the deposit by having funded it.
• Someone must be able to act in Türkiye. Payment, receipt, filing and the release formalities all happen locally and on court time. If no one is instructed, this is the point at which days are lost — the practical steps are set out for relatives acting from abroad.
• Currency and identification. The order states a figure in Turkish lira. Exchange movement between decision and transfer is the payer's problem, and transfers that cannot be matched to the file reference sit unallocated.

Nothing about the deposit changes the rules that applied earlier in the file. What was said in the first statement, and whether counsel and an interpreter were present, remains part of the record; if that stage has not yet happened, it is worth reading what the Code requires in the first hours after apprehension before anything is signed.

CMK 115 governs the return, and it treats the two parts of the security identified under CMK 113/2 differently.

The sharper risk is CMK 112/1. A suspect or accused who deliberately fails to comply with the judicial control obligations may be detained immediately by the competent judicial authority — and the Code says so whatever the length of the prison sentence that may be imposed. The two-year ceiling in CMK 100/4 does not protect someone who breaches. A missed reporting date is not a small administrative matter; it is the event that converts release back into detention and puts the deposit at risk.

Judicial control does not run indefinitely. Under CMK 110/4, whether the obligations should continue must be reviewed at intervals of no more than four months. CMK 110/A caps the total: two years in matters outside the assize court's jurisdiction, extendable by one further year where necessary with reasons; three years in assize matters, with extensions not exceeding a further three years in total, or four years for the offences listed there and offences under the Anti-Terror Act. For children, these periods apply at half. Under CMK 111, the suspect or accused may apply to have judicial control lifted, and the judge or court may decide within five days after taking the prosecutor's view; decisions on judicial control are open to objection, and by CMK 268/1 that objection is made within two weeks of learning of the decision, with objections against a sulh ceza hâkimliği's detention and judicial control decisions examined by the asliye ceza judge (CMK 268/3-b).

The deposit is one instrument inside a larger decision — the choice between remand and release under conditions, and the applications and appeals that follow it. If that decision has not yet been made in your file, or has been made against you, the wider framework is set out in the guidance on remand, judicial control and release.