Liberty Over Bricks: Can't refuse bail for not having permanent home

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged a stark, often overlooked reality in bail law: in an era of skyrocketing property prices and barely affordable rentals, many accused do not have a permanent residence — and that alone cannot bar them from bail. “When individuals are arraigned as accused, it would be a miscarriage of justice to deny them bail solely because they lack a permanent residence,” the court observed, while stressing that the purpose of bail was to safeguard liberty while ensuring presence at trial, not to penalise economic circumstances. Making it clear that justice could not be measured in square feet, the Bench alluded to spiritualists and transient citizens, while stressing that residence was not a prerequisite for accountability.

The court also cautioned against assuming that a permanent address guaranteed compliance, noting that properties could be vacated or secretly transferred. The ruling arose from a petition filed by an accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case registered in Gurugram last September. The state and the complainant had opposed the bail plea, citing the petitioner’s lack of a fixed abode and alleging he was a “fleeing risk.”

Observing that vast segments of the population could not afford to buy property, and that securing rental accommodation was increasingly difficult, the Bench asserted the absence of a fixed address was a common reality rather than a legal disqualification. “In today’s era of highly speculative and inflated property prices… many people are unlikely to have a fixed address because they cannot afford to buy property, and even finding rental accommodation is equally challenging. Denying bail solely on this basis would be unjust,” the court asserted.

Referring to the wide spectrum of living arrangements in the country, the Bench added that even hermits or sages residing in ashrams without permanent homes could be — and have been — subject to legal proceedings. Turning to bailable offences, the court observed that statutory entitlement to bail could not be curtailed simply because a person has no fixed residence.

Allowing the plea, the court asserted that bail served not only to ensure the accused’s presence at trial but also to protect personal liberty against untested allegations. “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 or 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,” the Bench held.