Sachin Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) - Bail Condition - Right Of Residence Restriction
Can Bail Conditions restricting Accused's Right Of Residence be imposed?
Bail - In this case, while granting bail to the accused, High Court imposed condition which restricted his right of residence during the pendency of the trial - Allowing appeal, SC held: It is not uncommon that courts do impose conditions which impinge on the fundamental rights of the accused (of right of locomotion within the country, right of residence, right to travel abroad, etc.). However, only in exceptional cases should such a condition be imposed. 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 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 -While fairness of the trial remains the overriding consideration, a speedy trial is a facet of Article 21. If the right to speedy trial is breached, a simultaneous restriction on the right to residence becomes unjustified. (Para 21)
Case Info
Basic case details
Case name and neutral citation:Sachin Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.Neutral citation is not mentioned in the extracted text.
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Judgment date: 29 April 2026 (as indicated at the end: “New Delhi; April 29, 2026.”).
Case laws and citations referred
The judgment cites only one reported decision:
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772.
Statutes / laws referred
The Court refers to the following statutory provisions and codes (including their “corresponding” earlier provisions):
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
- Section 110(3) (corresponding to Section 308 IPC – attempt to commit culpable homicide)
- Section 3(5) (corresponding to Section 34 IPC – common intention)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- Section 193 (charge‑sheet provision referred to in context)
- Section 168 BNSS (corresponding to Section 149 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) – duty of police to prevent cognizable offences
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 149 CrPC (referred to as the earlier corresponding provision to Section 168 BNSS)
- Constitution of India
- Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty, including right to residence and speedy trial)
- Article 19 (invoked by the appellant in argument, in relation to right to residence/movement).
Three‑sentence brief summary
The Supreme Court examined a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court that barred the accused, Sachin Yadav, from residing in the same building as the complainant during the pendency of his trial arising from cross‑cases over a family property dispute. Noting that the alleged injuries were simple, that charges had not even been framed more than a year after filing of the charge‑sheet, and that Section 168 BNSS places the primary preventive duty on the police, the Court held that such an “ouster” condition disproportionately and unnecessarily infringed the accused’s Article 21 right to residence and became punitive rather than preventive. The Court therefore set aside only this residence‑related condition while maintaining the other bail terms, and directed that the appellant furnish an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour, with liberty to the trial court to cancel bail on any breach.