| Phony sureties' helping accused escape trial, court sounds alarm | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 15: Expressing serious concern over the growing practice of fake sureties allegedly operating in court premises, Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jammu, Parvaiz Iqbal has observed that certain persons are minting money by furnishing fabricated documents to secure bail for accused, particularly non-locals, thereby facilitating their escape from the criminal justice process.
The Court made these observations while dealing with an NDPS case in which two accused from Punjab had repeatedly failed to appear before the Court despite being released on bail in 2020.
Taking a stern view of the conduct of the surety, the Court directed him to deposit Rs 1 lakh towards forfeited bail bonds, observing that undue leniency in such cases would encourage similar practices and undermine the administration of justice.
The case arose from FIR No. 174/2020 registered at Police Station Bahu Fort under Sections 8, 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act following the recovery of 17 kilograms of poppy straw from a truck on July 12, 2020.
The accused, identified as Gurnam Singh and Manjeet Singh, both residents of Ludhiana, Punjab, were arrested and subsequently granted bail on October 8, 2020, subject to furnishing surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each.
Sanjay Kumar, a resident of Khanpur Bhawan, Gole Gujral, Jammu, stood surety for both accused and furnished bonds amounting to Rs 1 lakh.
However, the accused stopped appearing before the Court regularly from January 2024. Despite repeated issuance of non-bailable warrants, their presence could not be secured. The Court observed that warrants forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, had not received any response.
Consequently, the Court forfeited the bail bonds and summoned the surety to explain why the bond amount should not be recovered from him.
When Sanjay Kumar eventually appeared before the Court on July 11, 2026, following coercive measures, he expressed his inability to produce the accused, claiming that he neither knew them personally nor had any knowledge of their whereabouts.
He submitted that he had been misled by a friend into standing surety for persons who were strangers to him and sought lenient treatment.
In significant observations recorded in paragraph 6 of the order, the Court highlighted what it described as a notorious practice involving phony sureties operating within court premises.
The Court observed that certain persons were allegedly roaming around court complexes, charging money from accused, particularly non-locals, to stand as sureties and thereby committing fraud upon the courts.
It noted that such individuals reportedly carried fabricated identity documents, including Aadhaar cards and false revenue records relating to land ownership, to establish their eligibility as sureties.
According to the Court's observations, these persons allegedly identified accused requiring local sureties, negotiated monetary arrangements and furnished forged documents before judicial authorities to secure their release on bail.
The Court further observed that such practices enabled accused, particularly those belonging to other States or Kashmir Valley, to evade subsequent court proceedings.
Significantly, the Court noted that some accused allegedly preferred such fraudulent sureties despite the availability of genuine sureties, with the apparent intention of avoiding future appearances before the Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Chidiebere Kingsley Nwadham, 2026 INSC 870, the Special Judge observed that the Apex Court had recently highlighted the widespread problem of fake sureties and mandated stricter verification protocols.
The Court stressed the urgent need to curb the practice and sought the cooperation of the legal fraternity in identifying persons allegedly engaged in such fraudulent activities.
It specifically called upon members of the legal profession, through the President of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Jammu, to assist in identifying suspicious persons operating in the corridors of the District Court Complex, Jammu, so that appropriate action could be taken against them.
Returning to the case at hand, the Court rejected the surety's request for leniency, observing that his conduct had facilitated the accused in evading trial.
The Court held that the surety had knowingly undertaken a responsibility that he was unable to discharge and that adopting a soft approach would encourage similarly placed persons to act in the same manner.
Accordingly, the Court directed Sanjay Kumar to deposit Rs 50,000 against each surety bond, aggregating Rs 1 lakh.
However, the Court accepted his request to deposit Rs 50,000 immediately and the remaining Rs 50,000 on the next date of hearing.
The Court further observed that the primary responsibility of a surety was to ensure the presence of the accused before the Court rather than merely paying the bond amount after the accused had disappeared.
Meanwhile, fresh non-bailable warrants were ordered against both accused through the SSP, Ludhiana.
The matter has been listed for further proceedings on November 14, 2026. (JNF) |
|
