Bail Conditions Can't Be Imposed On Family Members Of Accused Or Convict: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, whereby the petitioner sought modification of the conditions imposed vidé an order granting interim bail to the petitioner on the ground that his wife needed to undergo surgery.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held, “Upon a conspectus of the forgoing, this court is clearly of the view that the conditions imposed vidé paras 8, 10, 11 and 12 in order dated 13.03.2026 are wholly unacceptable intrusions on the privacy of the petitioner’s wife, who is not an accused in the subject FIR. Even otherwise, the law only empowers the court to impose appropriate conditions on the undertrial or the convict to whom bail/suspension of sentence is being granted; and while doing so, the court cannot impose conditions on the family members of the accused or convict.”

Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Shubhi Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the conditions, the IO was asked to file a report regarding the family members of the wife of the accused, who visited her. The IO was asked to file a report explaining the circumstances which exist in the house of the accused by clicking the photograph and noting down statements of three neighbours regarding the manner in which the wife of the accused is leading her life. The IO was also asked to collect the CDR record of the mobile phone of the accused and his wife and file a report regarding the persons with whom they used to make calls.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioner that the conditions imposed were an unacceptable invasion of the privacy of the petitioner’s wife, who had no concern with the subject of the FIR.

The Bench held that the conditions imposed were wholly unacceptable intrusions on the privacy of the petitioner’s wife, who was not an accused in the subject FIR.

The Bench was of the view that the court cannot impose conditions on the family members of the accused or convict. Thus, upholding the interim bail granted, the Bench set aside all the conditions imposed.

The Bench was informed that the petitioner has already suffered judicial custody for about 4½ years and that his jail conduct has been ‘satisfactory’.

The Bench disposed of the petition by enumerating a new set of conditions which included the petitioner to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs 1 lakh with 2 sureties.

Cause Title: Sandeep @ Kala @ Kale @ Sonu @ Sinothia v. State Govt Of NCT of Delhi (Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2100/2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi, Advocates Hemant Gulati, Sidharth Mor, Shobit Dimri, Bharat, Keshav Sethi

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Shubhi Gupta, Insp. Sundeep Yadav

Click here to read/download Order