Supreme Court To Consider Amicus Suggestion For Professional Bail Bondsmen

The Supreme Court is set to explore whether bond surety can be outsourced to professional bail bondsmen, who will be operating under strict regulatory framework.

In a case dealing with a Nigerian national named Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, who absconded after he was granted bail in an NDPS case and furnished a fake surety, the Supreme Court had appointed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra as amicus to explore how such cases can be avoided.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and AG Masih is hearing the Union's challenge to the bail granted to Nawchara by the Bombay High Court. The allegation against him is that 4.9kg of heroin was recovered from his possession. The Union challenged the bail order, stating that the High Court failed to consider that for the same nature of crime, he was earlier convicted. The bench issued notice on May 5, 2025, and stayed the operation of the bail order in a subsequent hearing.

Luthra has proposed the Professional Bail Bondsmen(Regulation) Rules, 2026, under which the National Legal Services Authority(NALSA) would be the governing authority. It would be under an obligation to maintain the National Digital Surety Registry, also containing instances of default.

As per this, licences can be granted to an individual or business entity(an LLP/company/partnership firm) to be a professional bail bondsman. They must demonstrate financial solvency. However, the license can't be issued to police and prison officers, judicial officers, prosecutors, advocates, and persons convicted for fraud, dishonesty etc.

Applicants must be Indian citizens aged at least 30 years, demonstrate financial solvency, clear police verification, and pass a qualifying examination testing knowledge of bail jurisprudence and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The draft rules mandate that all premiums, fees, and collateral received must be held in segregated fiduciary accounts. Every licensed bondsman or entity must furnish a security bond, bank guarantee, or insurance-backed instrument in favour of the State.

Fees can only be charged in accordance with rates approved by the Authority and must be disclosed in writing before execution of the bond.

Transfer of title to movable or immovable property as a bail condition is expressly prohibited. Collateral must be proportionate to the bond amount and returned immediately upon discharge or exoneration.

Licensed bondsmen will be required to ensure the appearance of the accused on all court dates, explain bail conditions in a language understood by the accused, maintain accurate records, and promptly inform courts of apprehended breaches.

The rules prohibit detention, confinement, or physical restraint of accused persons. Bondsmen are barred from impersonating public authorities, soliciting business within court premises or detention centres, offering inducements, influencing choice of advocate, or making misleading advertisements.

Special Provisions For Foreign Nationals

For foreign accused persons, bail bonds cannot be executed without express court permission. Courts may impose enhanced conditions including deposit of passport, territorial travel restrictions, periodic reporting, higher bond amounts, or bank guarantees.

The framework permits coordination with the Bureau of Immigration, FRRO, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Ministry of External Affairs.

Licences may be suspended or cancelled for fraud, financial impropriety, coercive or unethical conduct, repeated bond forfeitures, or violation of court directions. Serious infractions may also attract criminal prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Other suggestions by amicus

Apart from professional bailbond persons, Luthra has sought that mandatory directions be issued that the accused's passport be deposited with the investigating agency or the Court and that he is not allowed to travel without the Trial Court's order.

In NDPS cases involving foreign accused, there should be physical verification of the sureties through jurisdictional police to ensure their genuineness before releasing the accused.

He has also proposed that foreign nationals should mandatorily be required to have two sureties. Further, the address of the accused in India is verified prior to his release.

Not An Isolated Incident

The Amicus submission notes that impersonation of sureties is a recurring problem and refers to the Supreme Court's 2021 order in Rajesh Kumar Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the issue of “rampant” impersonation of sureties was flagged. That matter was later registered as a suo motu case titled In Re: The Problem of Impersonation of Sureties, which remains pending.

The written submissions also refer to instances across States including Uttar Pradesh and Punjab where organised rackets allegedly furnished forged identity documents, recycled property papers, and produced impersonators as sureties.

The Allahabad High Court has observed that “a parallel network” of fake sureties and forged bonds has emerged in district courts.

Foreign Nationals Pose Distinct Challenges

The Amicus highlights that impersonation issues assume greater complexity in cases involving foreign nationals due to difficulties in verifying identity, local address and antecedents.

Citing NCRB data for 2023, the submission notes that over 25,000 crimes were registered involving foreign nationals, with the highest number attributed to Bangladesh, followed by Nigeria and Nepal.

The Court had recorded the submission of the Additional Solicitor General that in at least 47 cases, foreign nationals absconded while on bail and their sureties were later found to be fake.

Evaluation Of DRI Suggestions

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) proposed several measures including:

• Mandatory denial of bail to foreign nationals in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities.
• Mandatory two sureties for foreign nationals.
• Mandatory passport deposit.
• Electronic surveillance such as GPS tagging.
• Immediate Look Out Circulars.
• Biometric integration of FRRO and NCRB databases.

The Amicus, however, cautioned that several of these suggestions may violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution if applied as blanket rules.

For instance:

A blanket denial of bail would violate the presumption of innocence. Mandatory two-surety requirement would not solve the problem of fake verification. Round-the-clock electronic monitoring may be unconstitutional in light of Frank Vitus v. NCB. Automatic issuance of Look Out Circulars or travel bans cannot be imposed mechanically.

At the same time, the Amicus endorsed certain proposals such as:

• Verification of surety documents through real-time digital authentication.
• Intimation to FRRO and concerned embassies in foreign national cases.
• Departmental accountability for officials who mechanically verify fake sureties.
• Creation of a centralized digital dashboard for foreign national cases.

Suggested Reforms

The Amicus has proposed a multi-layered reform framework categorised as:

• Legislative measures, including limited electronic monitoring with safeguards.
• Administrative measures, including departmental inquiries against erring officials.
• Technological integration of databases such as CCTNS and court systems for real-time verification.
• Creation of a unique surety identification number to prevent repeated misuse.
• Mandatory disclosures and enhanced surety bond formats.
• Time-bound action against impersonators.

The case will be heard on February 19.

Case Details: UNION OF INDIA vs. CHIDIEBERE KINGSLEY NAWCHARA|SLP(Crl) No. 014185 - / 2025

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra is assisted by Advocate Sheezan Hasmi and Mihir Joshi. Advocate on Record is Sana Hashmi.