In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a contentious bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court, which required the accused, Akbal Ansari, to relocate and reside in Delhi for the duration of his trial. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, ruled that the imposition of such a condition was “unreasonable” and did not align with the principles of bail.
Case Background
The case (Akbal Ansari vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 4286 of 2024) involves Akbal Ansari, who had been granted bail by the Delhi High Court. While granting the bail, the High Court imposed several conditions, including one that required Ansari to secure accommodation in Delhi and reside there until the trial’s conclusion.
This condition was challenged by the appellant on the grounds that it was onerous and unrelated to ensuring his presence during the trial. Ansari’s legal team, led by Mr. M. L. Yadav and supported by a team of advocates, argued that the condition was excessive and unnecessarily burdensome, as the accused lived outside Delhi and had no ties to the city.
Supreme Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench pointed out the unreasonable nature of the bail condition. “Such a condition cannot be said to be a condition of bail,” Justice Abhay S. Oka observed, emphasizing that while certain restrictions may be imposed to ensure an accused’s compliance with the legal process, requiring someone to relocate to a different city was not justifiable.
The court stressed that bail conditions should aim at ensuring the presence of the accused during the trial but should not infringe upon personal liberties to the extent that it disrupts the daily life of the accused without reasonable grounds.
The bench also modified other conditions attached to the bail. The only restriction upheld by the court was that the appellant must report to the local police station on the 1st and 15th of every month between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., ensuring that he remains available to the authorities while the trial is ongoing.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal issue in the case was the proportionality and reasonableness of bail conditions imposed by the High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that bail conditions must balance the interests of justice with the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right to freedom of movement.
In this instance, the court found that the High Court’s condition was unduly restrictive and went beyond what was necessary to secure the accused’s presence for trial. The ruling underscores the principle that while courts may impose conditions to ensure compliance, they must not impose excessive or disproportionate restrictions that could affect an individual’s right to personal liberty.
Decision
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s condition requiring Ansari to reside in Delhi and modifying other conditions of his bail. The decision restores a more balanced approach to bail, ensuring that the accused remains accountable to the legal process without infringing upon his personal liberties.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the condition of relocating was unreasonable, and the Supreme Court’s ruling has reaffirmed the limits within which bail conditions should be framed.
Counsel Details
The appellant, Akbal Ansari, was represented by Mr. M. L. Yadav, along with Mr. Harish Chand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Anant Chaittoria, and Ms. Neha. The respondent, State of N.C.T. of Delhi, was represented by Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, Additional Solicitor General, along with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria and other supporting advocates.
