Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Sachin Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2168-2169 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3961-3962 of 2026]
Decided On : 29-04-2026
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Section 483 of BNSS] – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 19 – Grant of bail – High Court, while granting bail to appellant has imposed several conditions apart from condition that restricts his right of residence during pendency of trial – Appellant is also restricted from changing his address without informing concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer – Grant of bail to accused, with conditions, is a discretionary relief – Impugned condition, which High Court imposed in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, seems to be preventive in nature which came to be imposed considering situational aspect of multiple FIRs and cross FIR having been registered against appellant as well as members of complainant’s family, respectively, arising out of long-standing property disputes – Only in exceptional cases should such a condition be imposed – Condition like one under challenge takes in its train serious curtailment of rights guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution and must satisfy tests of reasonableness, proportionality and necessity. (Paras 5 and 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 439 and 149 [Sections 168 and 483 of BNSS] – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 19 – Grant of bail – Condition of restricted right of residence – Courts ought to remind Police of this statutory obligation to prevent commission of cognisable offence and ensure that it is duly performed – Condition of bail such as one imposed here, shifts burden to accused and thereby weakens State’s obligation to prevent crime – Any condition that curtails fundamental rights must be justified by circumstances that necessitate such restriction – While fairness of trial remains overriding consideration, speedy trial is a facet of Article 21 – If right to speedy trial is breached, simultaneous restriction on right to residence becomes unjustified – Impugned condition to keep appellant out of his own home till conclusion of trial amounts to ouster and is unreasonable and uncalled for – Condition of restricting appellant’s right to reside in same building as complainant pending trial ought to be interdicted – Impugned condition set aside. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 29)
Facts of the case:
High Court of Delhi by a common impugned judgment and order dated 02nd May, 2026 disposed of Bail Applications. A part of said order is under challenge in these appeals at instance of appellant-accused.
Findings of Court:
In the event there is any breach of terms and conditions for grant of bail, trial court shall be at liberty to cancel bail of appellant.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER :
1. The High Court of Delhi by a common impugned judgment and order dated 02nd May, 2026 disposed of Bail Application No.1345/2025 & Crl. M.A. No.13482/2025. A part of the said order is under challenge in these appeals at the instance of the appellant-accused.
2. While granting the appellant’s prayer for release on bail with certain conditions, the High Court imposed the following condition:
d. The applicant shall not reside in the same building as the complainant. The applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/SHO.
…”.
This condition is challenged by the appellant as violative of his rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution.
3. Appellant figures as an accused in FIR No. 109 dated 18th February, 2025 registered at Police Station Hauz Khas. The FIR, registered at the instance of the complainant/respondent no. 2/Savita Yadav1[Complainant], accuses the appellant and the co-accused of offences under Sections 110(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232[BNS] (corresponding to Sections 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively).
4. Appellant was arrested on 18th February 2025 and enlarged on bail by the aforesaid order dated 2nd May, 2025.
5. It is not in dispute that the complainant and the appellant are relatives. They are residing in the same building. An alleged violent altercation resulted in registration of the FIR. The High Court, while granting bail to the appellant has imposed several conditions apart from the condition that restricts his right of residence during the pendency of the trial, noted above. Furthermore, the appellant is also restricted from changing his address without informing the concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer. This condition has left the appellant aggrieved.
6. It has been argued by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that such a condition amounts to his eviction from his own home without following due process and also adversely affects his income considering that he is running a shop, located in the same building. It has been almost a year that the appellant has been forced to reside elsewhere and not run his shop at the said building; and, since termination of the trial is nowhere in sight, the impugned condition ought to be set aside by this Court.
7. Per contra, it is the pleaded case of the State in its counter affidavit that the condition restraining the appellant from residing in the same building is preventive and situational. The condition, not amounting to displacement, is a reasonable restriction imposed in view of the long-standing history of violent altercations between the related parties who are residing in the same building to prevent breach of peace, ensure safety of the complainant and facilitate a fair trial.
8. Learned counsel on behalf of the complainant has supported the impugned condition. According to him, the impugned condition has resulted in peace in the locality. There have been no altercations between the family members of the complainant and the appellant ever since he has been forced to reside elsewhere and declining interference with such condition would be in the best interests of the society.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials on record.
10. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233[BNSS] on 18th April 2025. Appellant, as well as the co-accused, is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Sections 110 and 3(5), BNS. Prosecution proposes to examine 10 (ten) witnesses to drive home the charges against the appellant. However, despite lapse of more than a year, the charges are yet to be framed; thus, trial is yet to begin. The counter affidavit of the State reveals that a supplementary chargesheet is also proposed to be filed, since the weapon of offence
Grant of bail – Any condition that curtails fundamental rights must be justified by circumstances that necessitate such restriction – Condition of restricting appellant’s right to reside in same buil....
Bail conditions restricting fundamental rights like the right to reside in one's home must satisfy tests of reasonableness, proportionality, and necessity; such conditions cannot be used to shift the....
Bail conditions must be reasonable and not infringe upon the rights of the accused.
Grant of bail – Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective – While deciding bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of Court to decide civil disputes as bet....
The right to choose one's residence is upheld unless it substantially impacts trial proceedings, considering the aspects of age, health, and compliance with judicial requirements.
Imposing bail conditions that result in indefinite detention violates fundamental rights under Article 21 and contravenes bail provisions stated in the Cr.P.C.
Bail conditions for foreign nationals must respect personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot lead to indefinite detention without legal backing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
