Liberty over bricks: Lack of permanent home not a ground to refuse bail, says HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged a sharp, often overlooked reality in bail law: when property prices are soaring beyond reach, and rentals are barely affordable, many accused simply 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, adding that the bail’s purpose was to safeguard liberty and 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 indicating that residence was not a prerequisite for accountability. The court also cautioned against assuming that a permanent address guaranteed compliance, while observing that properties could be vacated or secretly transferred.

The ruling came on a petition field by an accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case registered at a police station in Gurugram in September last year. Among other things, the State and the complainant opposed the bail plea on the ground that the petitioner was not having a permanent abode and was a “fleeing risk”.

The court observed that vast segments of the population could not afford to buy property, and even securing rental accommodation was increasingly difficult, making the absence of a fixed address a common reality, rather than a legal disqualification.

“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 unjust to deny them bail solely on this basis,” 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 had been, subject to legal proceedings.

Turning to bailable offences, the court observed: “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.”

Allowing the plea, the court added that the purpose of bail was not only to ensure the accused’s presence at trial but also to safeguard 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/ 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.”