The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reduce the surety bond/personal bond based on the financial circumstances of the petitioner and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar cases.

JUDGEMENT

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. 1. Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for reducing the surety amount from two sureties of Rs.1 lakh each, to one surety of Rs.1 lakh, in FIR No.0753/2022 under Section 21/29 NDPS Act registered at PS:

Narela Industrial Area.

2. In brief, the petitioner was admitted to bail vide order dated 27.07.2023 by the learned Special Judge, NDPS (North), Rohini, New Delhi on furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties of like amount. An application moved on behalf of the petitioner for reduction Page 2 of 8 of two sureties of Rs.1 lakh each, to one surety of Rs.1 lakh, was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.09.2023. 3. Learned Trial Court rejected the application for reduction of surety amount, after referring to CRL.M.A.22603/2023 in BAIL APPLN.44/2023 Pargan Ram Alias Nikka v. State, decided on 23.08.2023 by a Single Judge of this Court. The reduction of number of sureties in aforesaid case was declined, relying upon Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 as observed in para 3 as under:- “3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not able to arrange the two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore the surety amount may be reduced. However, bail conditions imposed in accordance with the direction of the Apex Court in “Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners V. Union of India” (1994) 6 SCC 731 wherein it was inter alia held as under:

“15…We, therefore, direct as under: ….

(iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount.”

Learned Trial Court vide impugned order further held that since the bail conditions were imposed in the instant case in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India and Others (supra), there are no reasons to interfere in the bail order passed in favour of the petitioner.

Page 3 of 8 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner belongs to a humble background and brother and father of the petitioner expired on 10.04.2023 and 24.02.2023 whereby all the modes of earning of the family have stopped and there is no possibility of arranging two sureties of Rs.1 lakh each. It is further urged that petitioner has been unable to avail the benefit of bail for a period of more than seven months despite the order granting bail in his favour on merits of the case. Prayer is accordingly made that surety be reduced to one. Reliance is further placed upon Nastor Farirai Ziso v. NCB, BAIL APPLN.1960/2020 decided by this Court on 11.04.2022 and directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in SMWP (Criminal) No.4/2021 on 31.01.2023. 5. Shri Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Crl) for the State fairly does not oppose the application for reduction of sureties. It is urged that surety amount generally needs to be fixed considering the social condition and financial resources of the accused and should not be onerous.

Reference is further made to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Others”; (1994) 6 SCC 731; Ebera Nwanaforo v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1674; Jeewan Mondal v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3; Ubah Casmir Amobi v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4511; Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Bhagat v. The State of Bihar, (2018) 14 SCC 199;