Court Rules Conditions as Beyond Judicial Scope, Upholds Interim Bail for Accused
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court set aside conditions imposed on the family of an accused during the grant of interim bail, ruling them as an unacceptable invasion of privacy. The court reaffirmed the boundaries of judicial authority, emphasizing that conditions imposed during bail proceedings cannot extend to non-accused family members.
The case, titled "Sandeep @ Kala @ Kale @ Sonu @ Sinothia v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi," involved the petitioner, Sandeep, who sought modification of the conditions imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, while granting interim bail. The bail was initially granted from March 16 to March 28, 2026, to allow the petitioner to attend to his wife's surgery.
Conditions imposed by the lower court required police to surveil the petitioner's wife, including deputing a female police official, photographing her, collecting call detail records, and filing detailed reports about her daily life. Sandeep's counsel, Mr. Jitendra Sethi, argued these conditions were intrusive and irrelevant as the petitioner's wife was not connected to the FIR in question.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the matter, observed that the conditions were indeed an overreach and beyond the judicial scope. The court highlighted that the power to impose bail conditions is limited to the accused or convict and should not infringe on the rights of unrelated individuals.
The court maintained the interim bail but set aside the intrusive conditions, allowing the petitioner to avail of the bail from April 1, 2026, for three weeks. The court stipulated several conditions for the petitioner, including furnishing a personal bond, not leaving Delhi without permission, and surrendering his passport if he possessed one. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to provide medical records related to his wife's surgery upon surrendering after the bail period.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual privacy rights while balancing the interests of justice. The court clarified that no further extension of interim bail would be granted on the same grounds, ensuring the proceedings' integrity.
Bottom Line:
The court set aside conditions imposed on the petitioner's wife during the grant of interim bail, terming them as an invasion of privacy and beyond the scope of judicial authority.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
