Delhi HC Dismisses Second Bid to Reduce Surety Bond in NCB Case, Flags Dual Legal Aid Problem
Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected a second modification application targeting the same bail order, and flagged wasteful double assignment of legal aid advocates to a single accused.
The High Court of Delhi on 3 September 2026 dismissed an application seeking reduction of the surety bond amount fixed in a bail order dated 1 April 2026, passed in a case involving the Narcotics Control Bureau. Justice Girish Kathpalia, sitting singly, found no reason to interfere with the conditions set out in that bail order. The bench also took the occasion to highlight a recurrent problem with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee: two separate legal aid advocates had been assigned to the same accused, resulting in a breakdown of communication and an avoidable drain on public funds.
The Bail Order and the Two Modification Attempts
The petitioner, Desalegn Atnafu Abeba, had earlier been granted bail by order dated 1 April 2026 in Bail Application No. 4445/2025. The bail order came with a surety bond requirement. Seeking relief from that condition, the accused filed CRL.M.A. 22125/2026 for modification of the same order. That application, however, was withdrawn by his then private counsel after part submissions were made.
The accused was subsequently assigned legal aid advocates. One of those advocates, apparently working from jail instructions, drafted the present application — CRL.M.A. 27346/2026 — again seeking reduction of the surety bond amount fixed in the 1 April 2026 order. A second legal aid counsel appeared in court on the matter.
The counsel appearing in court on 3 September 2026 was unaware of neither the withdrawn earlier application nor a previous order dated 27 July 2026. According to the court, the advocate “had no option but to stand for this application in court.”
Dual Legal Aid Assignment: A Communication Failure
Justice Kathpalia described the situation as “yet another case” where assigning two different legal aid advocates to one person had produced a complete lack of communication. The first legal aid advocate drafted the application from jail without knowledge of the 27 July 2026 order. The second legal aid advocate appeared in court on the hearing date.
The bench pointed out that engaging two legal aid advocates for the same person amounts to double expenditure on the exchequer. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, to be placed before the committee dealing with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC).
This is not the first time Justice Kathpalia had raised the issue. The order uses the phrase “as repeatedly pointed out,” signalling that the bench has flagged this structural problem in prior matters as well.
Merits of the Modification Application
On the substance of the modification request, the court examined the circumstances described in the bail order dated 1 April 2026. Justice Kathpalia found no reason to reduce the surety bond amount from what had already been fixed. The bench did not elaborate further on the specific conditions of the bail order, but the dismissal was based squarely on the absence of changed circumstances or any new ground that would justify revisiting the earlier conditions.
The accompanying exemption application, CRL.M.A. 27347/2026, was also dismissed along with the modification application.
Order
Both CRL.M.A. 27346/2026 (modification) and CRL.M.A. 27347/2026 (exemption) were dismissed by Justice Girish Kathpalia on 3 September 2026. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, for being placed before the DHCLSC committee. The bail order dated 1 April 2026 remains unmodified.