Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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