Top Stories

Aadhaar For Bail: SC Asks Chhattisgarh HC To Decide The Plea For Modification Of Order In 10 Days [Read Order]

Akanksha Jain
25 Jan 2018 4:15 PM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court on Thursday disposed of the Special  Leave Petition challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court order by which it had made Aadhaar card of the accused as well as surety mandatory before obtaining bail.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud disposed of the petition filed by advocate Peeyush Bhatia after the counsel for the Chhattisgarh Bar Council informed the bench that it has moved the high court seeking modification of particular directions.

The apex court directed the Chhattisgarh High Court to deal with the application filed by the Bar Council within 10 days.

“We have been apprised by the learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh Bar Council that it has filed an application for modification of the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid, we would request the High Court to deal with the application as per law within a span of ten days hence,” it ordered.

It is to be noted that the Chhattisgarh High Court had, on January 5, passed an order making Aadhaar mandatory to check fictitious persons coming up as sureties.

It had passed a string of directions even as the Constitutional validity of Aadhaar is under challenge before the Supreme Court.

The order came to be challenged by Bhatia on the grounds that the apex court is considering the validity of the Aadhaar Act and the order is going to adversely affect the rights of prisoners.

As for the directions contained in Paragraph 10 of the high court order of which the Bar Council has sought modification, they are as under:

  • While examining the surety papers, the trial court shall necessarily obtain copy of the Aadhaar card of the accused as well as of the surety.

  • The Aadhaar card of the accused and the surety as well as genuineness of the revenue papers shall be verified by all the trial courts, as soon as the same are furnished, preferably within a period of one week from the date of its submission.

  • The release warrant shall be issued only after proper verification of the identity of the accused and the surety as well as the genuineness of the revenue/surety papers.

  • In the event the revenue/surety papers or the Aadhaar card is found to be forged, the concerned trial court shall forthwith lodge an FIR against the person who submitted the papers/Aadhaar details.

  • The concerned district & sessions judge shall maintain a register/database in electronic form containing the case No., crime No., particulars of the accused, details of the police station, particulars of the person who has stood surety for the accused therein, the details of the property against which the surety is based, etc.

  • If a particular surety is found to have stood surety in many cases on the basis of same property papers, the same shall be rejected, if it is involved in more than two cases.

  • The concerned Revenue Officer and the Station House Officer shall cooperate with the trial court in course of verification of revenue/surety papers as well as the Aadhaar details of the accused and the surety.

  • All the trial courts shall meticulously follow these directions and shall certify in the order sheet of the respective case that “the verification of papers has been done in accordance with the order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in M.Cr.C. No. 3957 of 2017 (Ved Prakash Gupta @ Gudda v. State of Chhattisgarh)”.

  • If such certification is not made by the trial court, disciplinary action may be initiated against the erring presiding officer.

Read the Order Here

Next Story