The Supreme Court has raised red flags over a growing pattern of foreign nationals getting bail on strength of dubious sureties and then disappearing. The court has asked the Union government and the Unique Identification Authority of India or UIDAI to explain what systems currently exist to verify the authenticity of surety documents.
According to data placed before the Court, at least 38 cases investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau and nine probed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence involve foreign nationals -particularly from Nigeria and Nepal - who went on the run after furnishing sureties that later turned out to be fake.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi observed that impersonation by sureties "appears to be rampant" in certain states.
The judges stressed that the issue has grave implications for the criminal justice process, especially in cases involving serious offences.
They called for an assessment of whether existing technological tools - such as the surety verification module developed by the National Informatics Centre- are functional and adequate.
The matter stems from a DRI case involving the seizure of 4.9 kg of heroin.
One of the accused, Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, was granted bail by the Bombay High Court in May on the ground that he had been in custody for over two years.
When the government challenged this order, the Supreme Court put a freeze on the bail and directed Maharashtra police to arrest the accused and issue lookout circulars, if needed.
By October, however, Nawchara had disappeared. Despite a lookout notice and attempts by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, he remained untraceable.
The court then asked authorities to contact the surety who had guaranteed his bail.
The DRI's subsequent affidavit revealed that every detail furnished by the surety was false. Officers discovered that the surety did not reside at the Parel address provided; residents had never heard of him. The listed employer confirmed that no such person had ever worked there. Even the bank account cited did not exist.
The DRI has now approached the trial court. seeking forfeiture of the surety bond, a non-bailable warrant against the surety, and permission to question the advocate who identified him on the bail papers.
Taking note of the wider pattern, the bench remarked that the issue goes far beyond this case.
Additional Solicitors General SV Raju and S Dwarakanath informed the Court that multiple agencies have reported similar instances, exposing systemic vulnerabilities in the verification process.
To address these concerns, the court sought UIDAI as a respondent, seeking details on mechanisms available to verify Aadhaar information submitted with surety bonds.
The advocate who represented the accused and filed the surety documents was also added as a party, with notice to be served through the Senior Superintendent of Police.
The Court additionally sought a detailed report from the trial judge on how the surety was accepted and what statutory procedures were followed.
The Supreme Court ordered that its directions be communicated immediately to the trial court and listed the matter for December 17. All parties have been asked to file written submissions on the broader issues raised.
