Surety requirement cannot be dispensed with where necessary to secure an accused’s presence during trial.

The applicant had been granted regular bail by order dated 17 July 2025, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 and one surety of the like amount.

He remained in judicial custody because he was unable to arrange a surety.

His earlier request to furnish a cash surety was disposed of after a friend agreed to stand surety, but that friend subsequently withdrew.

The applicant claimed prolonged incarceration of more than six years, financial incapacity, estrangement from his family, and lack of a permanent residence.

He therefore sought release on a personal bond without surety or, alternatively, on a cash surety of ₹10,000.

The State opposed the application, submitting that the applicant was facing trial under Section 302 IPC and, being a self-described vagabond without a permanent address, might abscond if released without a substantial surety.

Whether the applicant should be permitted to be released solely on furnishing a personal bond without surety or a cash surety, despite facing trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC and having no permanent address.

Whether, in view of the applicant’s financial constraints and inability to arrange a surety, the amount of surety prescribed by the earlier bail order should be reduced.

The Court applied the principle that bail conditions must safeguard the accused’s presence during trial, particularly where the accused is facing trial for a serious offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the earlier bail order, which recognised that verification of the accused’s and surety’s addresses by the concerned SHO could assist in securing the accused’s presence during trial.

The Court further applied the principle that bail conditions may be modified where the accused’s financial circumstances prevent compliance, while retaining such surety requirement as is necessary to prevent abscondence and protect the integrity of the trial.

The Court accepted that the applicant’s inability to arrange a surety was genuine and that his financial constraints justified some relaxation of the existing bail condition.

However, because the applicant had no permanent address, described himself as a vagabond, and was facing trial for the serious offence under Section 302 IPC, the Court considered securing his presence during trial to be a primary concern.

Releasing him solely on a personal bond or cash surety, without a surety capable of providing an additional assurance of appearance, was therefore considered likely to prejudice the conduct of the trial if he absconded.

Balancing these concerns against his financial hardship, the Court reduced the surety amount from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000 and clarified that the surety need not be a local resident or a family member.

It modified the bail order dated 17 July 2025 by permitting the applicant to furnish one surety in the reduced sum of ₹5,000 instead of ₹10,000.

All other bail conditions remained unchanged, and the modification application was disposed of accordingly.