In a significant move, the Supreme Court has struck down a puzzling bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court in a murder case, where the accused was required to both secure accommodation in Delhi and live there for the duration of the trial. This ruling came after the accused appealed the condition, arguing it was unfair and unnecessary.
The bench, led by Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih, found the stipulation “strange” and ruled that forcing someone to live in a specific location during trial does not fall within the standard parameters of bail conditions. Along with this mandate, two other related restrictions were also removed—namely, a ban on leaving Delhi without permission and a requirement to check in with the local police three times a week.
The Court did, however, modify the reporting requirement, instructing the accused to report to a local police station only twice a month, on the 1st and 15th, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for the trial’s duration.
The case revolves around a conspiracy leading to the murder of Sanjeev Kumar, with charges including murder, conspiracy, and possession of illegal arms. The prosecution alleges that the accused, along with others, orchestrated the killing to seize the victim’s property. While the High Court granted bail, it added these controversial conditions, prompting the accused to seek relief in the Supreme Court.
