Problem Of Impersonation Of Sureties Rampant: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Centre, UIDAI To Deliberate On Mechanism For Verification Of Surety
story
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...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
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 Court
As 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 chargesheet show that Vikash Vashistha was presented during the course of proceedings as surety towards release of vehicle in which one Vinay Kumar was interested. The vehicle got released but later on, when identity was enquired into and Vikash Vashistha was asked to produce his identity card, Adhar Card etc., he could not produce the same and made a statement before the concerned Magistrate that on the instructions of accused Rajesh Kumar Rathore, he had impersonated Ramphal Sharma.
On behalf of Rathore, it was argued that Rathore is an advocate and an active member of the bar and in the society and he has been raising voice against irregularities and as he had made certain allegations and requested for enquiry against a judicial officer, he was falsely implicated in the case. According to him, the allegations that on his instructions, Vikash Vashistha impersonated Ramphal Sharma is highly improbable. It was further submitted that the allegations that he was involved in similar cases earlier and there are other criminal cases pending was only one side of the picture because in those cases, he has been granted relief in higher Courts and it was not the case that in any of the cases, he has been convicted. According to the advocate for Rajesh Kumar Rathore, if any person impersonated and appeared in the Court as surety, his identity ought to have been immediately checked up and would have revealed on that very day, but the appearance of Vikash Vashistha on the next day and recording of his statement clearly shows that it is an act of revenge and false implication because he has been making allegations against judicial officers. According to him, police officers are also involved in implicating him in a false case. Lastly, it was submitted that the investigation is complete, chargesheet has been filed, therefore, at this stage, he may be granted bail.
"Prima facie allegations that Rajesh Kumar Rathore is being falsely implicated do not impress this Court, particularly because such complaints were made later on...It is not a case where the applicant – Rajesh Kumar Rathore is languishing in jail since long without any trial. Therefore, release only on the ground of delay in trial, at this stage, is not made out. In the result, applications of applicants – Rajesh Kumar Rathore and Vikash Vashistha are rejected", the High Court had directed.
So far as applicant – Priyanka Jaiswal was concerned, the High Court noted that she is a junior associate lawyer and there is nothing in the statement of Vikash Vashistha as recorded before the Magistrate to show that she had knowledge of the fact that one who is presented in the Court as surety is not Ramphal Sharma but Vikash Vashistha. Accordingly, her bail application was allowed.
Click Here To Download/Read Order