Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail which was opposed on the ground that he did not have a permanent abode, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara, J., held that in today’s era of highly speculative and inflated property prices that were largely unaffordable, many people could not afford to buy properties. The Court further stated that when such individuals were arraigned as accused, it would be a miscarriage of justice to deny them bail solely because they lacked permanent residence. Further, adding such indispensable criterion to the purpose and objectives of bail would give it a narrow meaning. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the accused.
Background
In the present case, the accused had duped the complainant, a businessman dealing in Aerognut Supari, with criminal intent of causing him wrongful loss by portraying himself to be in the same business. He had provided the incorrect address of his registered firm as well and had got the goods delivered to a different address from the one given in the invoices, in furtherance of defrauding him of a heavy amount of money. An FIR under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 was registered accordingly.
Upon investigation, the accused was not found to be staying at his permanent address at Bhuj and his Aadhar card carried the address of Vadodara where he had stayed on rent for a short period.
The accused prayed for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the accused and their family. Per contra, the respondent and the complainant stated that the accused did not have any place of permanent abode as he stated to be staying in some Ashram at Surat but none of the addresses given by him could be verified being correct. Thus, it was argued that in the event of being granted bail, it would not be possible to trace his whereabouts.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that there was sufficient evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime, however, pre-trial incarceration would not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.
Considering the accused’s permanent address, the Court opined that in today’s era of highly speculative and inflated property prices that were largely unaffordable for much of the population, many people were unlikely to have a fixed address because they could not afford to buy property, and even finding rental accommodation was equally challenging. When such individuals were arraigned as accused, it would be a miscarriage of justice to deny them bail solely because they lack a permanent residence. Additionally, in our country, there are hermits, sages who do not have permanent homes or residences and stay in ashrams, and even those people can be and have been arraigned as accused.
The Court stated that whenever an offence was bailable, a person had to be released on bail and simply because such a person had no place of residence would not mean that the person’s liberty would be curtailed. The objective of bail was not only to ensure the accused’s presence at trial, but also not to curtail liberty on one-sided allegations that were yet to pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Further, the Court observed that it was not inclined to give a narrow meaning to the purpose and objectives of bail by adding an indispensable criterion of having a permanent abode/ address. Moreover, even if one had a permanent address, it was not the case that such premises could not be vacated, or such property could not be surreptitiously sold off.
The Court emphasized that the law of bail had its own philosophy and occupied an important place in the administration of justice. Its concept emerged from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who was alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court was the delay in concluding the trial. The Court questioned that it often took several years, and if the accused was denied bail but was ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody and was Article 21 of the Constitution not violated in such a case? The Court specified that this was not the only factor, but it was certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail.
The Court further emphasized that personal liberty was a very precious fundamental right, and it should be curtailed only when it became imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Personal liberty deprived when bail was refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the curial power to negate it was a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.
Considering that the accused had been in custody since May 2025, the penal provisions invoked and his clean antecedents, the Court allowed the petition and viewed that there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at the given stage subject to furnishing of bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The Court emphasized that the granting of bail aimed to give the accused another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen.
Further, the Court stated that the accused should not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. The Court specified that the bail was a conditional one and if the accused repeated the offence or committed any non-bailable offence which provided for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the bail could be revoked on discretion of the Court concerned.
[Sanjay Gordhanbhai Darji v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 39682 of 2025, decided on 30-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: M.K. Panchal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Jasmine Gill, A.A.G., Haryana and Sagar Tatusaria, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
