Supreme Court Raises Alarm Over Foreign Criminals Escaping Justice Through False Bail Sureties

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concerns regarding a troubling trend where foreign nationals obtain bail using questionable sureties before vanishing. The court has requested the Union government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to clarify existing protocols for authenticating surety documents.

Statistics presented to the Court reveal that at least 38 cases investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau and nine examined by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence involve foreign nationals—primarily from Nigeria and Nepal—who absconded after submitting sureties that were subsequently determined to be fraudulent.

Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi noted that surety impersonation "appears to be rampant" in certain states.

The justices emphasized that this issue significantly impacts criminal justice procedures, particularly in cases involving serious offenses.

They requested an evaluation of whether current technological solutions—such as the surety verification module created by the National Informatics Centre—are operational and sufficient.

The case originates from a DRI investigation involving 4.9 kg of heroin seizure.

Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, one defendant, received bail from the Bombay High Court in May because he had been incarcerated for over two years.

When the government contested this decision, the Supreme Court suspended the bail and instructed Maharashtra police to apprehend the accused and issue lookout circulars if necessary.

By October, however, Nawchara had disappeared. Despite a lookout notice and efforts by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, he remained untraceable.

The court subsequently directed authorities to contact the surety who had guaranteed his bail.

The DRI's follow-up affidavit disclosed that all information provided by the surety was false. Investigators discovered the surety did not live at the stated Parel address; residents were unfamiliar with him. The mentioned employer confirmed no such person had ever been employed there. Even the referenced bank account was nonexistent.

The DRI has now petitioned the trial court to forfeit the surety bond, issue a non-bailable warrant against the surety, and permit questioning of the advocate who identified him on the bail documents.

Recognizing the broader pattern, the bench observed that the issue extends far beyond this individual case.

Additional Solicitors General SV Raju and S Dwarakanath informed the Court that multiple agencies have reported similar incidents, revealing systemic weaknesses in the verification process.

To address these issues, the court added UIDAI as a respondent, requesting details about available mechanisms to verify Aadhaar information submitted with surety bonds.

The advocate who represented the accused and filed the surety documents was also included as a party, with notice to be delivered through the Senior Superintendent of Police.

The Court additionally requested a comprehensive report from the trial judge regarding how the surety was accepted and what statutory procedures were followed.

The Supreme Court ordered immediate communication of its directives to the trial court and scheduled the matter for December 17. All parties have been instructed to submit written statements addressing the broader issues raised.