O R D E R

CRL.M.A. 27346/2026 (for modification of order dated 01.04.2026) & CRL.M.A. 27347/2026 (exemption)

1. This is yet another case where it appears that on account of two different legal aid advocates for one person, there is complete lack of communication. Not only this, earlier the accused/applicant was being represented by a private counsel and now, for the present application he has been assigned two legal aid lawyers. Apparently, the first legal aid lawyer, who drafted this application from jail was completely unaware of the previous order dated 27.07.2026 and the legal aid counsel appearing today had no option but to stand for this application in court. As repeatedly pointed out, engaging two legal aid advocates for same person is double expenditure on exchequer. Copy of this order be also sent to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court for being placed before the committee dealingwith DHCLSC.

2. Earlier, the accused/applicant filed CRL.M.A.22125/2026 for modification of order dated 01.04.2026, but that modification application, after part submissions was withdrawn by the erstwhile private counsel for the accused/applicant. Now, the present application has been filed by legal aid counsel for modification of the same bail order, seeking reduction of the surety bond amount. Looking into the circumstances described in the bailorder, I find no reason to modify the said bail order dated 01.04.2026.

3. Therefore, this application and accompanying application dismissed.