Supreme Court Quashes Bail Condition Requiring Accused To Vacate Home Solely To Prevent Alleged Offence Against Complainant

The Supreme Court has quashed a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court that required the accused to vacate his residence solely to prevent any potential offence against the complainant living in the same building.

“The objects for imposing conditions to enjoy the concession of bail need no elucidation; but a condition that amounts to effective ouster from residence could be susceptible to an invalidation unless there is clear and cogent material to show that a lesser restrictive measure would not suffice. In the absence of such satisfaction, the condition would become punitive rather than preventive.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while allowing the accused's appeal against imposition of a condition by the High Court ousting him from his residence just to prevent commission of a crime against the complainant residing in the same building, where the accused resides.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, Delhi, under Sections 110(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 308 and 34 IPC). The FIR was lodged following a violent altercation between the appellant and the complainant, who are relatives residing in the same building.

While granting bail to the Appellant, the Delhi High Court imposed a condition that the accused “shall not reside in the same building as the complainant” and must inform authorities of any change in residence.

Challenging this bail condition, the accused moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned condition, the Court observed that the High Court had unreasonably curtailed the accused's right to reside in his own home under the guise of preventing the commission of an offence against the complainant. It emphasized that such prevention is the statutory duty of the police under Section 168 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 149 CrPC), which casts a vital obligation on law enforcement to prevent cognisable offences and take necessary preventive measures.

“…it would not be justifiable to shift the burden onto the accused by putting such a condition which unreasonable restricts an individual right of residence enshrined under Article 19 of the constitution.…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.”, the court observed.

“we are of the considered opinion that the condition of restricting the appellant's right to reside in the same building as the complainant pending trial ought to be interdicted…”, the court held, clarifying that other conditions imposed by the High Court remained unchanged.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: SACHIN YADAV VERSUS STATE (NCT of DELHI) & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 451

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ameet Siingh, Adv. Mr. Ankit Ambasta, AOR Ms. Ritu Bala Puri, Adv. Ms. Simran Vinayak, Adv. Ms. Niti Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Deepinder Singh Bhari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Davinder Pal Singh, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Amit Sharma-b, Adv. Mr. Praneet Parnav, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. R R Bag, Adv. Mr. Alok Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajbeer, Adv. Mr. Venkate Md Muppna, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankit Borker, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Mr. Raj Shekhar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma, AOR