SC flags foreign nationals fleeing on fake sureties, seeks govt, UIDAI replies

THe sublime margaret court has sounded the alert o'er a pattern of strange nationals securing bail on the basis of dubious sureties and then disappearing, calling upon the Union government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to spell out existing mechanisms to verify the genuineness of surety documents.The court noted that in at least 38 cases probed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and nine cases investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), foreign nationals, particularly from Nigeria and Nepal, had absconded after furnishing sureties that later turned out to be fake.A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi expressed serious concern that impersonation by sureties “appears to be rampant” in certain states and flagged systemic gaps that allow trial courts to rely on fabricated identities.Observing that the issue has significant implications for the criminal justice process, especially in cases involving grave offences, the bench said it was imperative to examine whether existing technological tools, including a surety verification module prepared by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), are functional and adequate.The matter arose from a DRI case involving the seizure of 4.9 kg of heroin from an accused who, according to the prosecution, had named Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, as an accomplice. Nawchara was granted bail by the Bombay High Court in May 2025 on the ground that he had undergone “long incarceration” of over two years.When the Union of India challenged the order, the Supreme Court stayed the bail and directed the Maharashtra police in September to arrest the accused and, if necessary, issue lookout circulars.But by October, he had vanished. The bench was informed that despite a lookout notice and efforts to track him through the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Nawchara remained untraceable. The court had then asked the authorities to contact the surety who had stood guarantee for him.It was the resulting affidavit filed by the DRI’s deputy director that triggered the court’s response. According to the affidavit, every detail furnished by the surety was false. When officers visited the Parel address the surety had provided, they found that not only did no such person reside there, but residents of the building had never heard of him. The employer he had listed confirmed in writing that no such employee had ever worked with them. Even the bank account the surety had cited was non-existent.The DRI has now approached the trial court seeking forfeiture of the surety bond, issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the surety, and permission to question the advocate who had identified him on the bail documents.Taking note of the “serious issue concerning the manner in which courts are accepting sureties”, the bench said the problem extends far beyond this case. Additional Solicitors General SV Raju and S Dwarakanath, assisted by senior counsel Nisha Bagchi and advocate Padmesh Mishra, informed the court that multiple agencies had reported similar instances where foreign nationals had vanished after furnishing fraudulent sureties, pointing to systemic vulnerabilities in the verification process.To address these concerns, the bench impleaded UIDAI as a respondent, seeking clarity on what systems, if any, are available to verify Aadhaar details presented with surety bonds. It also added as a party the advocate who had represented the accused and furnished his surety papers, directing issuance of notice through the senior superintendent of Police. The court further sought a detailed report from the trial court judge, on how the surety was accepted and what statutory procedures were followed.The Supreme Court directed that its order be communicated immediately to the trial judge and listed the matter for further hearing on December 17, 2025, while asking all parties to file written submissions on the broader issues raised.