Problem Of Impersonation Of Sureties Rampant: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, UIDAI To Deliberate On Mechanism For Verification Of Surety

Noting that the "problem of impersonation of sureties is rampant in at least some states", the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central Government and to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to "find out the possibility of a mechanism for verification of the surety by the judicial officers for its authentication as part of good governance". The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian was considering the bail plea of an advocate, Rajesh Kumar Rathore, in connection with the offence of instructing one to appear as fake surety in order to procure release of a vehicle by way of interim custody. The SLP petitioner-advocate sought bail in connection with an FIR under Sections 120 (B)/34, 193 (Punishment for false evidence in a judicial proceeding), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery of document or electronic record for the purpose of cheating) of IPC. The SLP petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application by the Chhattisgarh High Court in April, but the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order immediately.The bench of Justices Gupta and Ramasubramanian recorded the submission on behalf of the advocate-petitioner that the chargesheet has been filed on December 23, 2020 but the charges have not been framed."We do not find any reason to entertain the present Special Leave Petition but we give liberty to the petitioner to renew his request for bail after the framing of charges. The learned trial Court shall decide the application on merits in accordance with law", said the bench in disposing off the SLP.Further, the bench took cognisance of the "problem of impersonation of sureties", which, it said, is "rampant in at least some states"."We understand that there is a surety module software prepared by National Informatics Center in the Case Information Module for the Subordinate Courts in India. But there is still no mechanism with the courts to verify the genuineness of the surety", observed the bench.Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to issue notice to the Central Government and to the UIDAI at New Delhi "as to find out possibility of mechanism for verification of the surety by the judicial officers for its authentication as part of good governance".The bench noted in its order that the desirability of issuing notice to the states and Union Territories shall be decided on the basis of response from the Union/ UIDAI."The matter regarding verification of the surety be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench as deemed appropriate", said the bench.Proceedings before the High CourtAs recorded in the impugned order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Prosecution case was that in order to somehow secure release of vehicle by way of interim custody, the applicants- Rathore and his junior counsel Priyanka Jaiswal (co-accused), presented a fake person, one Vikash Vashistha (co-accused), as surety before the Court and in this manner, playing fraud, obtained order of release of vehicle. When the Court later on asked for identification proof and the person, who had appeared before the Court as the surety, was called, the said accused/applicant, Vashistha, stated before the Court that on the previous day of proceedings, he had impersonated one Ramphal Sharma in the Court and order of release of vehicle was procured. In his statement, he stated that all this was done by him as instructed by the applicant – Rathore. Another applicant- Jaiswal was also involved in the said conspiracy of producing a fake person in the Court in the name of Ramphal Sharma.The State counsel told the High Court that present is a case where fraud has been played upon the Court. It was submitted that one of the applicants – Rathore presented co-accused Vikash Vashistha in the Court as Ramphal Sharma to somehow procure an order of release of the vehicle. When the Court directed production of identity details, the matter got exposed and co-accused Vikash Vashistha appeared before the Court and gave a statement, which was duly recorded by the Court, that he is not Ramphal Sharma but that, on the instructions of co-accused Rajesh Kumar Rathore, he had impersonated Ramphal Sharma in order to get an order of release of vehicle. Further, the court was told that Rathore is involved in other criminal activities and similar allegations of producing fake persons in the Court have been registered against him. It was further submitted that the applicant seeking release of the said vehicle, namely, one Vinay Kumar also recorded a statement before the concerned Court that on 24/02/2020, Ramphal Sharma had not appeared in the Court and in order to obtain release of vehicle, he had made a false statement before the Court.The High Court noted that as far as applicants Rajesh Kumar Rathore and Vikash Vashistha are concerned, on prima facie consideration, records of the case and...

Problem Of Impersonation Of Sureties Rampant: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, UIDAI To Deliberate On Mechanism For Verification Of Surety

Mehal Jain

Tags