Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

Courts Cannot Be Conned by Fake Sureties Anymore: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mandates Aadhaar Verification

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has mandated the use of Aadhaar verification for surety bonds to combat the widespread issue of fraudulent sureties in the bail system. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain, directs the implementation of Aadhaar authentication infrastructure in court premises within four months, emphasizing the critical need for timely and efficient verification processes.

The issue of fraudulent sureties has plagued the judicial system, with many individuals using fake identities to furnish surety bonds pursuant to bail orders. This malpractice not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process but also delays trials, pushing genuine sureties out of the system. The Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted the necessity of separate laws relating to bails, stressing the urgency for reform in this area.

The Menace of Fraudulent Sureties: The court acknowledged the growing problem of professional sureties overshadowing genuine ones due to prolonged trials. Highlighting the adverse impact of professional sureties on the judicial system, the court noted, “The professional sureties have become the norm as the genuine sureties are wary to encumber their property due to prolonged trials.”

Legal Framework and the Role of Aadhaar: The judgment outlined the relevant legal provisions, including Sections 441, 441A, and 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deal with the bond of accused and sureties, declaration by sureties, and the power to order sufficient bail. Justice Jain referenced the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) Act, 2016, and the Aadhaar Authentication for Good Governance (Social Welfare, Innovation, Knowledge) Rules, 2020, to underline the role of Aadhaar in ensuring good governance and transparency.

Justice Pankaj Jain observed, “In order to make inquiry more prompt as contemplated under Section 441(4), verification of Aadhaar Cards/Aadhaar numbers needs to be seamless.” He further noted the critical need for the courts to insist on complete identity details and verify Aadhaar cards to prevent fraudulent surety practices.

Directions Issued: Secretaries of e-Governance Departments in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to apply for Aadhaar authentication for court use within 30 days.

Ministry of Electronics and IT to process these applications within an additional 30 days and provide necessary equipment within a further 30 days.

Implementation of Aadhaar authentication infrastructure in court premises within 4 months.

Courts to insist on Aadhaar verification for sureties, and magistrates to verify Aadhaar cards promptly.

Specific guidelines for first-time accused and the integration of Aadhaar with the periphery surety module.

Regular inspections of the surety register by judicial authorities.

The court detailed the principles of evaluating evidence and emphasized the importance of timely verification of sureties. It acknowledged the Supreme Court’s observations on the issues of pretrial release and the necessity of considering factors beyond financial risk, as highlighted in the cases of Moti Ram vs. State of M.P. and Hussainara Khotoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar. Justice Jain highlighted the importance of Aadhaar authentication, stating, “Verification of Aadhaar Cards provided by sureties can be verified seamlessly and promptly to combat the menace of impersonation.”

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Sharanjit Singh @ Suraj vs. State of Punjab

 

Latest Legal News