The Rajasthan High Court has modified a bail order in favour of an accused who remained in jail for nearly eight months despite having already secured bail. The Court observed that a person cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely merely because he is unable to arrange sureties required for his release.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that bail conditions should not become so difficult that they effectively deny the benefit of bail itself.
Background of the Case
The application was filed by Vaibhav, who was arrested on 3 September 2025 in connection with FIR No. 212/2025 registered at Kunhadi Police Station, Kota City.
Earlier, on 27 March 2026, the High Court had granted him bail. However, the order required him to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two surety bonds of ₹25,000 each.
Counsel for the applicant informed the Court that no one was willing to stand surety for him. As a result, despite receiving bail, he continued to remain in custody. The applicant therefore sought modification of the condition and requested release on the basis of a personal bond alone.
The State opposed the plea.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that more than two months had passed since bail was granted, yet the applicant remained in jail solely because he could not furnish the required sureties.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in CBI v. Ashok Sirpal, Justice Dhand observed that conditions imposed by courts should not be impossible to comply with.
The Court stated:
“Poverty and penalty should not hinder an accused persons’ right of life and personal liberty.”
The bench further observed:
“No accused can be kept in custody/incarceration for an indefinite period only on the sole ground that he is not in a position to arrange the sureties for his release on bail.”
According to the Court, such a situation would run contrary to the protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which safeguards personal liberty.
Modified Bail Conditions
While relaxing the surety requirement, the Court directed that the applicant could be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The Court also imposed certain conditions. The applicant must appear before the concerned police station on the second day of January every month until completion of the trial.
In addition, he has been directed to plant 25 shade-bearing trees in a public area within three weeks and submit photographs and an undertaking before the trial court. He must continue caring for the trees and provide updated photographs every six months during the pendency of the trial.
Explaining the condition, the Court observed that tree plantation serves the larger public interest and contributes to a cleaner and healthier environment for future generations.
Decision
Allowing the modification application, the Rajasthan High Court removed the earlier requirement of furnishing two sureties and directed that the applicant may be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and complying with the additional conditions, including plantation of 25 shade-bearing trees.
The Court ordered that the modification would form part of its earlier bail order dated 27 March 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vaibhav v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 217/2026 (in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4078/2026)
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: 27 May 2026
