Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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