Punjab & Haryana HC: Bail Can’t Be Denied Over No Permanent Home

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Bail Cannot Be Denied for Lack of Permanent Residence in Era of Unaffordable Housing

Court Says Liberty Cannot Depend on Owning a Home; Even Hermits and Sages Have Rights

Judges Stress That Bail Ensures Presence at Trial, Not Punishment for Economic Hardship

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 06, 2025:

In a landmark ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared that the absence of a permanent residence cannot be used as a ground to deny bail to an accused. The court observed that in today’s reality of skyrocketing property prices and unaffordable rentals, many people cannot secure stable housing. Denying bail on this basis, the court said, would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Anoop Chitkara, came in the case of Sanjay Gordhanbhai Darji v. State of Haryana (2025 LiveLaw (PH) 396). The petitioner, accused under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in a fraud case, had been in custody for two months. The State opposed his bail plea, arguing that he lacked a permanent residence and was therefore a flight risk.

Rejecting this argument, the court granted bail, stressing that liberty cannot be curtailed merely because someone does not own or rent a fixed home.

The Court’s Key Observations

Justice Chitkara’s order contained several significant points:

🏠 Housing Crisis Reality: The court acknowledged that property prices are “highly speculative and inflated,” making ownership impossible for much of the population. Even renting is a challenge.
⚖️ No Narrow Interpretation of Bail: The purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence at trial, not to punish them for economic circumstances.
🙏 Hermits and Sages Example: The court noted that even hermits, sages, and spiritual seekers who live in ashrams without permanent homes have rights. If they are arraigned as accused, they too cannot be denied bail.
📜 Bailable Offences: For bailable offences, the law mandates release on bail. Lack of residence cannot override this statutory right.
🔑 Permanent Address Not a Guarantee: Even those with permanent homes can vacate or sell them. Thus, a fixed address is not a foolproof assurance of compliance.

The court concluded:

“Is having a permanent abode an indispensable criterion to grant bail? This Court is not inclined to give such a narrow meaning to the purpose and objectives of bail.”

Case Background

The petitioner, accused of fraud and criminal conspiracy, had been in custody for two months. The charges were triable by a Judicial Magistrate, not a higher court.

The State counsel opposed bail, citing the absence of a permanent address. The complainant’s lawyer also argued that the accused posed a flight risk.

However, the court considered several factors:

The nature of the allegations.
The petitioner’s clean antecedents.
The proportionality of pre-trial custody.
The fact that the offences were triable by a lower court.

Balancing these, the court held that continued incarceration was unjustified.

Wider Context: Housing and Justice

This ruling reflects a broader social reality: India’s housing crisis.

Property Prices: In cities like Gurugram, Chandigarh, and Mohali, property prices have surged beyond the reach of middle-class families.
Rental Challenges: Even renting requires heavy deposits and documentation, which many cannot afford.
Homeless and Transient Populations: Migrant workers, daily wage earners, and spiritual seekers often lack permanent addresses.

By recognizing these realities, the High Court has aligned bail jurisprudence with social justice principles.

Reactions from the Legal Community

The ruling has sparked discussion among lawyers, scholars, and activists:

Support for the Judgment: Many senior advocates praised the decision, saying it prevents economic discrimination in bail matters.
Concerns About Flight Risk: Some legal experts cautioned that courts must still ensure mechanisms to secure the accused’s presence at trial.
Human Rights Perspective: Activists welcomed the recognition that liberty cannot be tied to property ownership.

The Tribune described the ruling as “liberty over bricks,” emphasizing that justice cannot be measured in square feet.

Comparative Perspective

Globally, courts have grappled with similar issues:

In the United States, bail reform debates highlight how cash bail discriminates against the poor.
In the UK, courts often impose reporting conditions instead of requiring fixed addresses.
In India, this ruling adds to a growing body of jurisprudence that prioritizes liberty over rigid formalities.

Implications for Future Cases

The judgment sets an important precedent:

For Accused Without Homes: Migrant workers, homeless individuals, and those in unstable housing situations cannot be denied bail solely for lack of residence.
For Bail Jurisprudence: Courts may increasingly focus on risk assessment (likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence) rather than formalities like addresses.
For Social Justice: The ruling acknowledges economic inequality and ensures that justice is not biased in favor of the wealthy.

Conclusion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision is a progressive step in bail jurisprudence. By recognizing the realities of unaffordable housing, the court has ensured that liberty is not reserved only for those who can afford property.

In a country where millions struggle for shelter, the ruling sends a powerful message: justice must adapt to social realities. Bail is about ensuring presence at trial, not punishing poverty.

As Justice Chitkara’s words remind us, even hermits and sages without homes have rights. In the eyes of the law, liberty cannot be tied to bricks and mortar.