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 State's statutory duty to prevent crime onto the accused.

O R D E R

1. The High Court of Delhi by a common impugned judgment and order dated 02^nd 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:

“22. …

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 Signature Not Verified rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution.

rashmi dhyani pant Date: 2026.05.02 Reason:

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 Yadav, Complainant, accuses the appellant and the co-accused of offences under Sections 110(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, BNS (corresponding to Sections 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively).

4. Appellant was arrested on 18^th February 2025 and enlarged on bail by the aforesaid order dated 2^nd 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 under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, BNSS on 18^th 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;