Ward Members, Lambardars Charging Money To Verify Surety 'Illegal': Punjab & Haryana HC Bats For Use Of 'MAADHAR App' For Verification

Flagging the issue of "illegal" demand of money by people who identify the authenticity of sureties, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed verification of sureties through MAADHAR application, to check the "unethical" practices.

The Court also suggested the government officers to verify the witnesses by MAADHAR application, while registering power of attorneys, sale deeds and other documents, to "reduce the fraudulent transactions."

While granting pre-arrest bail in Drugs and Cosmetics Act case, Justice Anoop Chitkara said,

"Although this Court has directed the petitioner to furnish surety, in terms of Ss. 485(4), 486, 491, and 492 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the ground reality is that when the sureties appear before the Courts, the Investigators, or the Attesting Officers, insist on verification of such sureties from Lambardar, Ward members, etc. It is common knowledge that many people who identify the authenticity of the sureties take money to cover traveling expenses, loss of day's earnings, or charges for providing service, which is not only illegal and impermissible but also unethical and immoral, and this loophole must be plugged in, and the following directions are likely to shut down the business of illicit service charges."

"Given the identification of sureties through the AADHAR card and further verification of the genuineness of the AADHAR number through MAADHAR (Google Play Store or Apple App Store), which is more authentic and almost foolproof, there shall be no need or justification for verification of sureties through Lambardar, Nambardar, Sarpanch, Pradhan, Panch, Kshetra Panchayat Sadasya, Gram Sewak, BDC Members, MC ward members, etc," the judge added.

The Court further said that, "it shall be sufficient for the Officer/Court attesting the bonds to declare the verification and authentication of the surety's identity through AADHAR, either themselves or through staff or even by delegation, and they shall not insist upon identification of sureties through Lambardars, ward members, etc., and such identification through them shall be done only when AADHAR identification is not available."

These observations were made while hearing an anticipatory bail application of one Pawan Jain under Section 482 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) accused under Section 18(c) and 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

Jain was allegedly found supplying and selling e-cigrettes to the people containing Nicotine (as per label) which fall under the definition of Drugs u/s 3 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules 1945.

As per the complaint, Jain could not produce any valid Drug License u/s 18 (c) of the Act for selling the products, claiming nicotine on the label which falls under the drugs and also could not disclose the name of the person from where he acquired it containing Nicotine at the time of inspection u/s 18-A of the Act

Opposing the bail, Counsel for the State submitted that the present petition under Section 482 BNSS is not maintainable because proclamation proceedings were issued against the petitioner. Later, vide another order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued fresh proclamation warrants under Section 82 CrPC, 1973, and directed the petitioner to appear on September, 07.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been declared as a proclaimed offender, and he has been asked to appear before the trial Court on and he undertakes to appear even before that date. He further added that he has challenged the said proclamation by filing a petition before the High Court, "which has already allowed, and the proclamation order has been quashed and set aside."

After hearing the submissions, the Court observed, "an analysis of the pleadings and arguments does not restrict the petitioner's rights to file a statutory bail under S. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."

Without commenting on the case's merits, the judge opined, "in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to Ss. 485(4), 486, 491, and 492 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the terms and conditions on bail bonds."

Consequently, the Court granted the relief by allowing the plea by granting the anticipatory bail plea.

"When the accused is not in a position to furnish surety, it may be brought to the notice of the concerned Officer/Court which is accepting the bonds, and if the said Officer/Court is satisfied with the petitioner's inability, then it shall be permissible for the said Officer/Court to reduce the bond amount or even exempt surety bond," added the judge.

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate For the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Title: Pawan Jain v.  State of Haryana

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 163

Click here to read/download the order