Bail Conditions Must Meet Tests of Reasonableness, Proportionality, Necessity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that while courts can impose bail conditions that affect an accused person’s fundamental rights, such restrictions must be imposed only in exceptional cases and should meet the tests of reasonableness, proportionality and necessity.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while setting aside a condition imposed by the Delhi High Court that had barred an accused from residing in his own home during the pendency of the trial.

The top court said conditions attached to bail often affect rights such as freedom of movement, residence and even travel abroad. However, a condition that seriously curtails rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution must be carefully justified.

Allowing an appeal filed by Sachin Yadav against the Delhi High Court’s May 2, 2026 order, the Bench held that the condition imposed on him was “disproportionately harsh, unreasonable and uncalled for".

“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 invalidation unless there is clear and cogent material to show that a lesser restrictive measure would not suffice,” the Bench said.

The case arose out of an FIR lodged on February 18, 2025 at Hauz Khas Police Station in Delhi. The complainant, Savita Yadav, accused the appellant and others of offences under Sections 110(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to Sections 308 and 34 of the IPC.

The complainant and the appellant are relatives and lived in the same building. An alleged violent altercation between them led to registration of the FIR and the appellant’s arrest on the same day.

While granting bail, the Delhi High Court had directed the appellant not to reside in the same building during the trial.

Appearing for the appellant, counsel argued that the condition effectively amounted to eviction from his own house without due process. It was further submitted that the appellant’s livelihood had also been affected since he operated a shop in the same building.

The counsel pointed out that the appellant had already spent nearly a year living elsewhere and was unable to run his shop, while the trial had not even begun and its conclusion was nowhere in sight.

On the other hand, the State argued that the restriction was preventive and necessary in view of the long-standing disputes and repeated altercations between the two families. According to the State, the condition was intended to prevent breach of peace, protect the complainant and ensure a fair trial.

The complainant’s counsel also opposed interference with the condition, contending that there had been no further altercations since the appellant was made to stay away from the building.

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court noted that more than a year had passed since the appellant’s arrest and charges were yet to be framed.

The Bench observed that although grant of bail with conditions is a matter of judicial discretion, the condition imposed by the high court appeared preventive in nature and was linked to the existence of multiple FIRs and cross-FIRs arising out of a long-standing dispute between the families.

Referring to Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, corresponding to Section 149 of the CrPC, Court said the duty to prevent commission of offences rests primarily on the police and the State.

“Section 168, BNSS (earlier Section 149, CrPC) 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 and ensure that it is duly performed,” the Bench observed.

Court further said that a condition such as the one imposed in the present case effectively shifted the burden of maintaining peace onto the accused instead of the State.

“This is not to suggest that an accused on bail is free to commit offences. He remains bound by the conditions of bail and by the law. Yet, any condition that curtails fundamental rights must be justified by circumstances that necessitate such restriction,” the Bench said.

The Supreme Court also stressed that the high court should have ensured that the police discharge their duty of preventing breach of peace and taking action against any wrongdoer.

Importantly, the Bench highlighted the delay in commencement of the trial and said that while ensuring a fair trial is essential, the right to speedy trial is also a part of Article 21.

“If the right to speedy trial is breached, a simultaneous restriction on the right to residence becomes unjustified,” Court held.

The Bench said that even if the high court considered it necessary to impose such a condition, it was equally important to ensure that the trial proceeded expeditiously.

“Since a speedy trial in this case appears to be a mirage having regard to the progress made till date, a restraint on residence becomes disproportionately harsh,” Court observed.

Holding that the condition effectively amounted to ousting the appellant from his own home, the Supreme Court set aside the restriction and allowed him to continue on bail without complying with that condition.

At the same time, Court directed the appellant to file an undertaking before the trial court stating that he would maintain peace and good behaviour while on bail.

“In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant,” the Bench clarified.

Case Title: Sachin Yadav Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Judgment: April 29, 2026