MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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