Fake sureties, forged bail bonds: Punjab and Haryana HC seeks compliance report on Aadhaar-based verification

The petitioner has alleged that incidents of fake sureties have been surfacing in “myriad criminal cases” across district courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. These cases involve individuals impersonating others and furnishing forged identity documents to secure bail for accused persons. The scam has grown into a “meticulous network,” the PIL states, undermining the criminal justice system.

The petitioner pointed to a recent case reported on June 11, where the Khanna police busted a gang accused of arranging fake sureties. The gang allegedly submitted fraudulent bail bonds in around 25 cases, exposing a systemic loophole in bail verification.

“The chorus for stricter bail verification has only grown louder,” the PIL notes, adding that repeated judicial observations about the need for a separate law on bail have not translated into effective action.

What the high court ordered in May

On May 10, while deciding the ‘Sharanjit Singh @ Suraj vs State of Punjab and others (CRM-M-49429-2023)’ case, the High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter and issued comprehensive directions. It observed that Aadhaar authentication was a legitimate tool for crime investigation and governance, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in the ‘K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India’ case.

The court directed Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to apply under Rule 4 of the Aadhaar Authentication for Good Governance Rules, 2020, to obtain Aadhaar verification services for all court premises. It gave a timeline of 30 days for making the application, another 30 for approval, and a further 30 for installation of equipment. The entire system was to be operational within four months.

The order required courts to insist on Aadhaar verification of sureties and accused before accepting bail bonds, obtain consent for authentication, and cross-check property details through the proposed “Periphery Surety Module”. Principal district judges and chief judicial magistrates were asked to inspect surety registers every three months. The Registrar General of the High Court was told to issue necessary circulars and frame rules if required.

Despite the strict timeline, the petitioner claims no progress has been made. He annexed replies from several district courts under the Right to Information Act, stating that Aadhaar-based biometric verification has not been installed anywhere. Responses from courts in Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Rupnagar, Sangrur, SBS Nagar, Bathinda, Karnal, Kurukshetra, and Gurugram all confirm non-implementation, he added.

The petitioner also submitted that he had written to the authorities on June 11, after the Khanna fake surety racket came to light, but received no response. “The reasonable limit of 60 days for action has long lapsed,” the PIL states.

Taking note of these submissions, the bench asked the states and UT to clarify their compliance status. It will review their replies on September 18.

“The incidents of fake sureties and forged bail bonds continue to rise, leaving district courts vulnerable,” the PIL argues, warning that without Aadhaar-based checks, the problem will persist.