Bail amounts should depend on the accused's financial circumstances, prioritizing personal bonds over sureties to prevent undue hardship.

Petitioner herein, who despite his being granted regular bail in FIR No.227/2021, dated 17.08.2021, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and Sections 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, is behind bars for his having not able to arrange surety amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, is aggrieved of order dated 11.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.MP No.360 of 2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby afore Court while allowing the application for modification of order dated 03.07.2025 passed in FIR, detailed hereinabove, proceeded to reduce the surety amount from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2. In nutshell, case of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner being poor person is not in a position to furnish surety to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Mr. Narwal states that since factum with regard to financial position of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the Court concerned, coupled with the fact that Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases have held that amount of bond should depend upon the financial circumstances of the accused, there was no occasion, if any, for the Court below to call upon petitioner to furnish bond/surety to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

3. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that petitioner is a hardened criminal and in seven criminal cases, he has already been convicted. He states that earlier, Court, while considering his bail, had directed him to furnish personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties each in the like amount, but taking note of his prayer for modification, same was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety. He states that since in past, petitioner absconded and for securing his presence, non-bailable warrants were issued, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge petitioner on bail, without there being any bond/surety.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that vide order dated 03.07.2025, learned Special Judge, Kullu, had enlarged the petitioner on bail in case FIR No.227 of 2021, dated 17.08.2021, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local surety of equal amount. Since petitioner was unable to furnish surety in terms of afore order, he was not released from jail, but subsequently on his application for modification of afore order, Court reduced the bond amount from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of equal amount.

5. Careful perusal of order sought to be modified in the instant proceedings clearly reveals that petitioner vehemently argued before the Court below that on account of financial constraint, he is not in a position to furnish the bond money, but yet Court concerned proceeded to order furnishing of personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of equal amount.

6. True it is that as per reply filed on behalf of respondent- Staet, petitioner herein stands convicted in seven criminal cases, but that may not be a relevant factor for deciding the issue at hand, especially when it is not in dispute that petitioner herein already stands enlarged on bail in FIR, detailed hereinabove, but he was not released for his having not furni