Rajasthan HC Drops Surety Condition for Jailed Accused, Orders 25 Trees Instead

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand modified bail conditions for an accused held since September 2025, replacing two surety bonds with a personal bond and a direction to plant 25 shade-bearing trees.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, on 27 May 2026 modified a bail order that had kept an accused in custody for over eight months despite being granted bail. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, found that the requirement to furnish two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000 each had become an effective bar to release, amounting to a violation of the accused's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In place of the surety condition, the Court substituted a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and directed the accused to plant 25 shade-bearing trees in a public area within three weeks. The order illustrates how an unmet bail condition can, in practice, convert a grant of bail into continued incarceration.

Arrest, Charge-Sheet, and the Original Bail Order

Vaibhav, son of Ramavtar @ Ramu, a resident of Kota, was arrested on 3 September 2025 in connection with FIR No. 212/2025 registered at Police Station Kunhadi, District Kota City. The FIR alleged offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After a charge-sheet was filed before the Trial Court, Vaibhav approached the High Court by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4078/2026, contending that the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate.

The High Court allowed that bail application on 27 March 2026. However, the order required Vaibhav to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. More than two months passed after that order, yet Vaibhav remained in Central Jail, Kota, because no one was willing to stand surety for him.

The Modification Application

Vaibhav filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 217/2026 seeking modification of the 27 March 2026 order. His counsel, Ms. Aashima Mathur, submitted that the surety condition was impossible to fulfil in practice: no person was willing to execute surety bonds on his behalf. She urged the Court to delete the surety requirement and permit release on a personal bond alone, for which Vaibhav expressed readiness.

Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant Government Advocate, opposed the prayer on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.

The Court's Reasoning on Article 21 and Unworkable Bail Conditions

Justice Dhand accepted the core submission. The Court observed that when a condition attached to bail is impossible for the accused to comply with, that condition defeats the very purpose of granting bail and violates the right to personal life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

To support this position, the Court drew on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal (Criminal Appeal No. 4277/2024). In that case, the Apex Court had held, in the context of suspension of sentence, that a condition “should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it,” since such a condition may amount to defeating the right of appeal and may also violate rights under Article 21. Justice Dhand applied the same principle to bail conditions.

The Court then stated its own position plainly: “poverty and penalty should not hinder an accused persons' right of life and personal liberty.” It went further to hold that no accused can be kept in custody for an indefinite period solely because he cannot arrange sureties. Keeping a person incarcerated on that ground alone amounts to a violation of Article 21.

The reasoning is grounded in the gap between a formal grant of bail and actual release. A bail order that sets conditions beyond the financial or social reach of the accused produces the same result as a refusal of bail. The Court treated this outcome as constitutionally impermissible.

Conditions Substituted by the Modified Order

In place of the two surety bonds, Justice Dhand directed that Vaibhav be released on furnishing only a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

First, Vaibhav must appear before the concerned Police Station on the second day of January every month until the conclusion of the trial.

Second, within three weeks from the date of the order, Vaibhav must plant 25 shade-bearing trees in his vicinity in a public area.

Third, he must submit photographs of the planted trees along with an undertaking before the Trial Court confirming compliance with the tree-planting condition. He must also take care of the plants until they grow and are in proper shape, and submit actual photographs of the trees at the end of every six months in every year until the conclusion of the trial.

The Court explained its reasons for the tree-planting direction: it is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. The Court observed that trees, for as long as they thrive, will continuously offer benefits to the city and the surrounding community, and that future generations will benefit from a cleaner, oxygen-rich environment.

Release is conditional on Vaibhav first submitting proof of compliance with the tree-planting condition. Only after that proof is submitted does the personal bond obligation crystallise for the purpose of actual release.

Outcome

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 217/2026 was allowed. The order dated 27 March 2026 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4078/2026 was modified to the extent described above. The modified order is to be treated as part and parcel of the original bail order of 27 March 2026. The surety bond requirement stands deleted; the personal bond is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000, and the tree-planting and monthly reporting conditions are added in its place.