Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Sandeep @ Kala @ Kale @ Sonu @ Sinothia – Petitioner
versus
State Govt of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 2100/2026
Decided on 20.3.2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemant Gulati, Mr. Sidharth Mor, Mr. Shobit Dimri, Mr. Bharat and Mr. Keshav Sethi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. Insp. Sundeep Yadav, Special Cell.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Law only empowers court to impose appropriate conditions on undertrial or convict to whom bail/suspension of sentence is being granted – Court cannot impose conditions on family members of accused or convict.
Headnote:
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 430 and 483 – Interim bail – Grant of – Petitioner seeks modification of conditions as also enhancement of period for which interim bail was granted by trial court – Law only empowers court to impose appropriate conditions on undertrial or convict to whom bail/suspension of sentence is being granted – While doing so, court cannot impose conditions on family members of accused or convict – Impugned conditions set aside and period of bail enhanced. (Paras 13 and 14)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
Crl.M.A. 8662/2026 (exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2100/2026
By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks modification of conditions imposed vide order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned ASJ-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi while granting interim bail to the petitioner from 16.03.2026 to 28.03.2026, on the ground that his wife needs to undergo surgery. The petitioner also seeks enhancement of the period for which interim bail was granted by the learned trial court.
2. Mr. Jitendra Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention to the conditions imposed vidé paras 8, 10, 11 and 12 of order dated 13.03.2026. The said conditions read as follows:
“8. IO will also file report regarding the family members of wife of accused, who have visited her, since 17.03.2026. For this, one lady police official will be deputed with wife of accused from 17.03.2026 till 20.03.2026 only.
* * * * *
“10. IO will file report explaining the circumstances which exists in the house of wife of accused by clicking the photographs of wife of accused and noting down statements of three neighbours regarding the manner in which wife of accused is leading her life.
“11. IO will also collect CDR record of mobile phone of wife of accused and that of accused and will file report regarding the persons with whom wife of accused and accused, have made calls, starting from today.
“12. IO is given liberty to file report in detail, explaining the circumstances in which wife of accused, is leading her life, as on date, till 20.03.2026.”
3. Learned senior counsel argues, that it is apparent that the conditions imposed are an unacceptable invasion of the privacy of the petitioner’s wife, who has no concern with the subject FIR.
4. It is further submitted, that despite having been granted interim bail
for the period between 16.03.2026 and 28.03.2026, by reason of the aforesaid conditions, the petitioner has not been able to avail his liberty.
5. Issue notice.
6. Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appears on behalf of the State on advance copy; and accepts notice.
7. Ms. Gupta argues, that as the record would show, on a prior occasion, vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in BAIL APPLN. No. 447/2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, the petitioner was granted interim bail on the very same ground, that is on the ground that his wife was to undergo spinal surgery on 01.12.2025.
8. Learned APP submits however, that the petitioner was aware that his wife was a running fever at the relevant time, for which reason she could not have undergone surgery; and yet, the petitioner availed the interim bail and after getting released from prison on 02.12.2025, stayed out for the entire 10-day period of interim bail, despite knowing that his wife could not have undergone surgery.
9. Insofar as the aforenoted conditions are concerned, Ms. Gupta fairly submits, that those conditions may not be appropriate since they amount to unwarranted surveillance and invasion of the privacy of the petitioner’s wife.
10. Upon being queried, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that as would be seen from the medical records relating to the petitioner’s wife issued by the Max Super Speciality Hospital, Dwarka, New Delhi, she has now been advised admission on 03.04.2026 with the surgery being scheduled on 04.04.2026.
11. Learned senior counsel accordingly prays, that the petitioner be granted some reasonable period of interim bail for him to be beside his wife at the time of her surgery and during the post-operative period.
12. The court is informed that the petitioner has already suffered judicial custody for about 4½ years; and that his jail conduct has been ‘satisfactory’.
13. Upon a conspectus of the forgoing, this court is clearly of the view that the conditions im
