Back
Supreme Court Ends 'Home Exile' Bail Condition in Fiery Family Feud
In a significant ruling on personal liberty, the has struck down a bail condition that forced an accused to vacate his own home to avoid clashes with a relative living in the same building. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed appeals by Sachin Yadav against the restriction in Sachin Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Criminal Appeals Nos. 2168-2169/2026), dated April 29, 2026. Cited as , the decision underscores limits on bail conditions impinging on fundamental rights.
Relatives Locked in a Building-Sized Battlefield
The dispute traces back to February 18, 2025, when FIR No. 109 was registered at under —mirroring attempt to commit culpable homicide and common intention under . Appellant Sachin Yadav and complainant Savita Yadav, relatives sharing the same building, clashed violently. Medical reports described the complainant's and her son's injuries as "simple."
Sachin was arrested the same day and granted bail by the
on May 2, 2025, but with a stringent clause: he
"shall not reside in the same building as the complainant"
and must report any address change to police. A cross-FIR (No. 110) by Sachin's mother alleged graver assaults by the complainant's side using baseball bats, axes, and knives. Over a year later, despite a chargesheet filed April 18, 2025, and plans for a supplementary one (weapon recovery pending), no charges were framed, and trial remained stalled.
Accused's Plea: Eviction Without Trial, Shop Shut Down
Sachin's counsel argued the condition was an unconstitutional eviction sans due process, breaching rights to residence and livelihood. Running a shop in the building, he claimed nearly a year's lost income and indefinite displacement amid an endless trial. It transformed preventive bail into punitive ouster, they contended.
The State countered it was a "preventive and situational" measure amid a
"long-standing history of violent altercations"
from property disputes, ensuring complainant safety, peace, and fair trial. The complainant echoed this, noting peace prevailed post-evacuation, benefiting society.
Why Courts Can't Play Landlord: Police Duty Takes Center Stage
The Supreme Court meticulously balanced bail's discretionary nature against fundamental rights. It affirmed courts can impose conditions curbing locomotion or residence in exceptional cases, but only if reasonable, proportional, and necessary . Here, the ouster failed these tests.
Key to the reasoning: (ex- ) mandates police to prevent cognizable offences. Citing State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay ((2014) 9 SCC 772), the bench stressed this "vital duty" on law enforcement, not the accused. Imposing residence bans shifts the burden unfairly, weakening state obligations.
Trial delays amplified the injustice—a "speedy trial" is Article 21's facet. With prosecution eyeing 10 witnesses and no progress in over a year, the condition turned "disproportionately harsh." Simple injuries, mutual allegations, and co-accused (Sachin's mother and sister) on pre-arrest bail suggested "skirmishes," not one-sided threat. The Court invoked:
"it takes two to make a quarrel."
Key Observations from the Bench
"A condition like the one under challenge takes in its train serious curtailment of rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and must, therefore, satisfy the tests of reasonableness, proportionality and necessity."
"Section 168, BNSS... casts a vital duty on the police to prevent the commission of cognisable offence and empowers them to take preventive action. Courts ought to remind the police of this statutory obligation..."
"Without doubt, the impugned condition to keep the appellant out of his own home till the conclusion of the trial amounts to an ouster and is, therefore, unreasonable and uncalled for."
Bail Without the Ban: Peace Pledge and Police Watch
The Court set aside only the residence condition, upholding other High Court terms. Sachin must now give a trial court undertaking for "peace and good behaviour" on bail. Breach invites cancellation. Observations won't prejudice trial merits.
This precedent guards against overreach in bail terms, prioritizing police prevention over accused displacement. In family-property feuds, it signals: protect rights unless lesser measures fail, and expedite trials to justify restrictions. LiveLaw reports highlight its resonance: no more "effective ouster from residence" without "clear and cogent material."
