Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High 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