Punjab and Haryana High Court flags surge in ‘fake sureties’: Denies pre-arrest bail to man for using forged Aadhaar card

The high court termed the petitioner’s alleged act of furnishing a fake surety as a “deliberate and calculated fraud” upon the court, suggesting an intention to “misuse the judicial process” for securing liberty.

Serious allegations, name in FIR

• The accused allegedly attempted to secure bail for one, Jony, based on a fake Aadhar Card and land record of another person, called Iqbal Singh, and actively participated in the crime.
• After lodging of FIR, the petitioner, apprehending her arrest, moved an application for the grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the trial court in November 2025.
• The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, and he is specifically named in the FIR as well as in the disclosure statement of co-accused Jagjeet Singh.
• While considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of the offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of the offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection at the given stage.

• Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act.
• Considering the gravity of the allegations levelled against him, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation into the matter.
• While considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to maintain a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests.
• The court should consider all the aspects like the magnitude and nature of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the need for fair and free investigation and the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on society.
• There is no merit in the petition considering the case in hand.
• The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation.

Petitioner’s submission: Disclosure statement not admissible

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Balraj Singh Sandhu argued that his client has neither forged any document nor submitted any document before the court.
• He further argued that the petitioner was not present in the courtroom on the date in qusetion.
• Sandhu further pointed out that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only based on the disclosure statement made by co-accused Jagjit Singh.
• He emphasised that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence placed on record to connect his client with the offence in question.
• He further added that the disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible and prayed for the pre-arrest bail of his client.
• Sandhu also pointed out that the petitioner has clean antecedents, as he is not involved in any other case and is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

State’s submission: Active participation

• State’s counsel, additional advocate general Mohit Chaudhary, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

• He further added that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and was also named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Jagjeet Singh, and as per his disclosure statement, the petitioner, along with other co-accused, conspired to fraudulently secure bail of one Jony based on a fake Aadhar Card and the land record of another person, Iqbal Singh.
• Chaudhary emphasised the active participation of the petitioner in the crime and submitted that his custodial interrogation is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter.