The Supreme Court recently struck down a bail condition which had directed the accused to arrange an accommodation in Delhi and reside in the national capital till the conclusion of trial [Akbal Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was of the view that such a condition imposed by the Delhi High Court was strange and cannot be a mandate for grant of bail to an accused person. Therefore, it set aside the same.
"The High Court has imposed a strange condition of directing the appellant to arrange an accommodation in Delhi and that the appellant should reside in Delhi till the conclusion of the trial. Such a condition cannot said to be a condition of bail," the Bench underlined.
The Court also set aside two other bail conditions - restriction on the accused leaving Delhi without the trial court's permission and the requirement to report to a police station in Delhi three times a week.
"The High Court has recorded a finding that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, the High Court has imposed a strange condition of directing the appellant to arrange an accommodation in Delhi and that the appellant should reside in Delhi till the conclusion of the trial. Such a condition cannot said to be a condition of bail. Consequently, the other two conditions will have to be also set aside. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal by setting aside condition Nos. (ii), (iv) and (v) in paragraph 24 of the impugned order," the Court held in its October 21 order.
However, the Court also ordered imposition of a new bail condition on the accused - to report to the local police station on the 1st and 15th of every month between 10 AM and 11 AM till the trial concludes.
The accused was booked for allegedly conspiring to murder one Sanjeev Kumar. The accused was charged with offences under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
As per the prosecution case, the wife of deceased along with his former wife and daughter had hired a contract killer through present appellant-accused to kill the deceased and obtain his properties.
The High Court had granted bail to the appellant-accused but had imposed the impugned bail conditions.
Aggrieved, he moved the apex court.
Advocates ML Yadav, Harish Chand, Mukesh Kumar, Anant Chaittoria, Akash, Neha and Vishwa Pal Singh appeared for the accused.
Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Prasanjeet Mohapatra, Gaurang Bhushan, Vijay Awana and Sweksha appeared for NCT of Delhi.
[Read Order]