'In An Era Of Unaffordable Housing, Accused Can't Be Denied Bail For Lacking Permanent Residence; Even Hermits Have Rights': P&H High Court

In a significant observation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the absence of a permanent residence cannot be a valid ground to deny bail to an accused, especially in an era where skyrocketing property prices and rental challenges make it difficult for many to secure stable housing.

The Court granted bail to a man accused in fraud case under Sections 406, 420, 468, 120-B IPC.

While refusing to accept State counsel's objection that regarding petitioner not having a permanent abode, the Court said, "in today's era of highly speculative and inflated property prices that are largely unaffordable for much of the population, many people are unlikely to have a fixed address because they cannot afford to buy property, and even finding rental accommodation is equally challenging."

When such individuals are 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. Furthermore, what would be the situation in case of bailable offences? Whenever an offense is bailable, a person has to be released on bail. Simply because such a person has no place of residence would not mean that the person's liberty would be curtailed even when the offence is a bailable one, it added.

The judge explained further that the objective of bail is not only to ensure the accused's presence at trial, but also not to curtail liberty on one-sided allegations that have yet to be confronted by the accused and to pass the test of judicial scrutiny of their credibility and legality.

"Is having a permanent abode/ address an indispensable criterion to grant bail? This Court is not inclined to give such a narrow meaning to the purpose and objectives of bail. Moreover, even if one does have a permanent address, it is not the case that such premises cannot be vacated, or such property cannot be surreptitiously sold off," said the Court.

The bench noted that the petitioner has been in custody since 2 months and and the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate.

Considering "the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, petitioner's clean antecedents and the other factors peculiar to this case," the judge opined that there would be no justifiability for further pre- trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions" imposed by the Court.

Mr. M.K. Panchal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, A.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Sagar Tatusaria, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: Sanjay Gordhanbhai Darji v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 396

Click here to read order