The Delhi High Court said the bail conditions forced on a convict’s wife were unacceptable intrusions into her privacy. It added that a court’s authority to impose such terms applies only to the undertrial or convict and not to their family members.
The Delhi High Court found several bail conditions imposed on a convict’s wife to be unacceptable intrusions on her privacy and noted that the court’s authority to attach conditions is limited to the undertrial or convict, not their family members.
The matter arose from a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking modification of conditions attached to an interim bail order granted because the petitioner’s wife required surgery.
ALSO READ: Bill Liable to Be Misused and Illegal: Legal Exerts Warns on Stringent Bail Conditions
The Single Judge, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, observed,
“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 appeared for the petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor Shubhi Gupta represented the State.
The contested conditions had directed the investigating officer to report on the visitors to the wife’s residence, describe household circumstances by taking photographs and recording statements of three neighbours about the wife’s lifestyle, and obtain call detail records of both the accused and his wife to identify frequent contacts.
The petitioner argued these requirements amounted to an impermissible invasion of his wife’s privacy, who had no role in the FIR.
ALSO READ: “Excessive Bail is No Bail”: Supreme Court
The court agreed, holding the conditions to be unjustified intrusions on a non-accused family member and reiterating that conditions may only be imposed on the accused or convict.
Accordingly, the bench upheld the interim bail order but struck down the intrusive conditions.
The court noted the petitioner had already spent roughly four-and-a-half years in custody with satisfactory jail conduct, and ultimately disposed of the petition after prescribing a revised set of conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties.
Case Title: Sandeep @ Kala @ Kale @ Sonu @ Sinothia v. State Govt Of NCT of Delhi (Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2100/2026)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
