As per case facts, the Union of India appealed against the bail granted to Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, a foreign national, who was arrested with a commercial quantity of heroin under ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2026 INSC 870 Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). ____________ OF 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No(s). 14185 of 2025)
UNION OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CHIDIEBERE KINGSLEY
NAWCHARA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 2
SANJAY KAROL, J.
For ease of reference, this judgment is divided as follows:
INDEX
The Appeal ............................................................................................ 3
Orders Passed by this Court .................................................................. 9
Analysis And Consideration ................................................................ 13
The NDPS Act- Scheme & Relevant Provisions .........................................13
Bail under Special Statutes .....................................................................18
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ..............................................23
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 ..................................................28
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ...........................35
Principles Regarding the Grant of Bail to Foreign Nationals .....................43
Applying the understanding to the Present Facts and Cancellation of Bail49
The Issue Regarding Sureties .............................................................. 55
Factual Matrix : Non-existence of Sureties .......................................... 59
Indian Statutory Position and Comparative International Perspective .......74
Inputs by the Amicus Curiae, Agencies and the Appellant ........................79
Power of this Court to issue Directions under Article 142 ....................... 103
OUR VIEW ......................................................................................... 114
Analysing The Inputs – and Our Opinion Thereupon .............................. 114
Directions .............................................................................................. 132
Suggestions ........................................................................................... 136
Annexure I..................................................................................142
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 3
1. Leave Granted.
The Appeal
2. At first glance, the scope of this appeal appears to be limited.
Union of India is aggrieved by the grant of bail to the respondent(s)-
accused in connection with Crime No. 37 of 2023 registered with
the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
1 branch under Sections 8(c),
21(c), 23(c), 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985
2 and as such, is in appeal thereagainst. All
that would be required of this Court then would be to adjudicate
the correctness of the impugned order
3 on the well-settled
principles of appeal against grant of bail, as recently encapsulated
by this Court in Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi)
4.
However, we only wish it were so. Instead, what has come to light
in these proceedings is deeply unsettling.
3. The respondent-accused, namely Chidiebere Kingsley
Nawchara, was arrested on 16
th March 2023 in connection with a
total of 4935 grams of heroin recovered from the possession of one
1
DRI
2
NDPS Act/The Act
3
Criminal Bail Application No. 4139 Of 2024 dated 5
th
May 2025
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 4
Damodar Surya Rama Prasad Dubey, who was apprehended at the
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai, upon
his return from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This ‘consignment’, it was
revealed, was to be further delivered to the respondent – accused
by one Hekatoli Sumi, a resident of Delhi. Her statement led to his
arrest. The investigation was carried out and completed,
culminating in the filing of the chargesheet in NDPS Spl. Case No.
1449 of 2023 on 6
th September 2023.
3.1 The relevant extracts of the chargesheet are as below:
“x. She voluntarily tendered a red coloured envelope
having golden print on it, containing 500 USD, which
she was supposed to handover to Mr. Damodara
Surya Rama Prasad Dubey after collecting trolley bag
from him on 15.03.2023. The said red coloured
envelope, containing 500 USD was handed over to
her by one lady who identified herself as Ms. Helen.
Ms. Helen told her to give the envelope to Mr.
Damodara on the instructions of Mr. Chedibere.
xi. Mr. Chedibere offered her R.5000/- for collecting
the said trolley bag from Mr. Damodara Surya Rama
Prasad Dubey and she agreed to the offer made by
Mr. Chedibere as she was already in a financial
hardship.
… … …
…
i. He was in contact with Ms. Hikatoli Sumi since
he was released on bail from Tihar Jail, New Delhi
around Hune, 2022. He stated that when he came
out on bail from Tihar Jail, he had no job prospects
available for him nor he had enough money to do
business in India, Since his passport was also seized
by government agency, he could not travel back to
Nigeria also. A such, he indulged himself in
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 5
smuggling of drugs again. He stated that he used to
contact Ms. Hikatoli Sumi motstly through whatsapp
only. He knowingly hid this fact in his earlier
statement recorded on 15/16.03.2023 in the office of
DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit.
ii. He had instructed Ms. Hikatoli Sumi to collect the
trolley bag from Mr. Damodara Surya Rama Prasad
Dubey on 15.03.2023. He had informed Ms. Hikatoli
Sumi about the fact that the said trolley bag was
containing some narcotic drugs concealed in it. He
promised to give Ms. Hikatoli Sumi Rs.20000/- in
cash for taking the delivery of the said trolley bag
from Mr. Damodara Surya Rama Prasad Dubey. He
also instructed Ms. Hikatoli Sumi that Ms. Helen
(Mob. +91 8798508619) would also be present on the
spot while she would take the delivery of the said
trolley bag from Mr. Damodara Surya Rama Prasad
Dubey. He also instructed Ms. Hikatoli Sumi that
after taking the trolley bag from Mr. Dubey, she
needed to handover the trolley bag to Ms. Helen and
as per promise she would get Rs.20,000/- cash from
Ms. Helen.
iii. He was shown two photographs and he identified
the person in both the photographs as Ms. Helen
alias Oge.
iv. He in close coordination with Ms. Helen alias Oge
used to take delivery of narcotic drugs from various
passenger landing in New Delhi, through their Indian
contacts who were in need to money. Thereafter, he
used to further coordinate to deliver the said drugs to
the ultimate received on his phone. On being
categorically asked as to who used to give
instructions for the said movement of drugs from one
place to another, he sated that one Ms. Helen used to
give him instructions. On being asked about further
details of Ms. Helen, I stated that I did not have any
further details of her.
v. He reiterated that he deleted the wha tsapp
messages and chats with Ms. Hikatoli Sumi as he had
instructed her to collect the trolley bag, concealing
the narcotic drug, from Damodara Surya Rama
Prasad Dubey. He did so since he was afraid that his
involvement in the smuggling of the narcotic
substance would be revealed and that his nexus with
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 6
the drug smuggling syndicate would be established
easily.
vi. He was aware that Heroin is a Narcotics
substance covered under the Narcotics Drugs &
Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985, and is illegal to
be brought/ carried in India. However, he had
knowlingly helped the drug smuggling syndicate to
smuggle Heroin into India in greed of money only.
… … …
…
25. Forensic examination of mobile device of Ms.
Hikatoli Sumi was conducted under Panchnama
dated 04.09.2023 (RUD-35). Some incriminating
data was retrieved during the forensic examination of
the data from the WhatsApp chats between her and
Mr Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara (RUD-36). On
going through the chats it was found that Mr
Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara was shared the
picture of Mr. Damodara Surya Rama Prasad Dubey
to her on 15.03.2023 for identification of Mr. Dubey.
Further he had shared the con tact details and
addresses of Mr. Damodara Surya Rama Prasad
Dubey and directed Ms. Hikatoli to collect the drug
consignment.”
(emphasis supplied)
3.2 On 12
th September 2024, the learned Special Judge for NDPS
Cases at Greater Mumbai , rejected the respondent-accused’s
application for bail in NDPS Spl. Case No.1449 of 2023. From a
perusal of paragraph 7 of the order, the following reasons are
revealed: (a) he has been alleged to be the mastermind of the
trafficking of drugs; (b) he is a habitual offender, he stands
convicted by the Sessions Court, Patiala House, New Delhi in NDPS
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 7
Case No. 8510/2016
5 and was out on bail having been released by
the Delhi High Court, whereafter he partook in the instant crime
and (c) he is a member of the international drug trafficking
syndicate as evidenced by the WhatsApp chats placed on record.
4. It was an application seeking regular bail, in which the order
impugned before us came to be passed. The relevant extracts of the
impugned order are as follows:
“Prima facie there is no answer given in the Affidavit-
in-Reply to the questions which have been prima
facie listed by the Court in paragraph Nos.2 and 4
of its aforesaid order. Said Affidavit-in-Reply is
nothing but a mere reiteration of the facts of the
case and nothing more. The prosecution is relying
upon WhatsApp chats as argued by Mr. Thakker
through VC. Said chats unless they show the live
link to establish the complicity of the person
involved in the crime cannot be referred to and relied
upon at the stage of bail as held by the Supreme
Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union
of India (2021) 20 SCC 50. At the stage of bail
complicity of the Applicant cannot be considered on
the basis of hearsay evidence which is sought to be
referred to and relied upon by the prosecution. That
apart case of the Applicant is prima facie fully
covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the
Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4
SCC as opined and held by this Court in the
previous order. Since indictment of Applicant is
solely based on the statement of co-accused person
and the facet of his long incarceration in prison for
more than 2 years 2 month pending trial and
commencement and completion of trial being a
distinct impossibility, in that view of the matter I am
of the opinion that Applicant can be released on bail.
5
By judgment dated 21
st
December 2019
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 8
5. In view of the above prima facie observations,
Bail Application is allowed subject to the following
terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be released on
bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like
amount;
(ii) Before his actual release from jail,
Applicant shall furnish his address where he
proposes to reside after his release from jail to
the concerned Police Station and also the trial
Court;
(iii) After his release from jail, Applicant
shall report to the Investigating Officer as and
when called for;
(iv) Applicant shall attend the trial Court
on first Tuesday of every month between 11.00
a.m. and 01.00 p.m. to mark his presence. If
the first Tuesday of the said months falls on a
holiday and/or non Court working day, the
Applicant shall mark presence on the next
working day;
(v) Applicant shall co-operate with the
conduct of trial and attend the trial Court on
all dates unless specifically exempted and will
not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he
does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply
for cancellation of this order;
(vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of
Maharashtra without prior permission of the
Trial Court;
(vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the
witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any
manner;
(viii) In case of any infraction of the above
conditions and/ or two consecutive defaults in
marking his attendance before trial Court, it
shall attract the provisions of Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C. i.e. for cancellation bail; and
(ix) The concerned prosecuting Agency
shall immediately communicate this order of
grant of bail to the concerned Registration
Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the
Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 within
the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. This
condition is added in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Frank Vitus v.
Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 9
Orders Passed by this Court
5. Notice in the Special Leave Petition was issued on 8
th
September 2025, and the matter was heard from time to time. This
Court passed a number of orders. Those relevant for final
determination of this appeal are summarised hereinbelow:
5.1 On 19
th September 2025, the Director-General of Police for
the State of Maharashtra
6 was directed to take steps to arrest the
respondent-accused and get in touch with the Embassy of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria to secure his presence at Trial.
5.2 On 31
st October 2025, pursuant to earlier orders of the
Court, (a) The Director General, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit; (b) Principal
Additional Director General, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit; (c) Principal
Additional Director General, DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit and (d)
Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, were present in Court, and
certain affidavits, consequent upon the discussion that took place,
were directed to be filed. It was also recorded that the respondent-
accused was untraceable and that a look-out notice had been
6
DGPM
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 10
issued. Steps were directed to be taken against the persons who
had acted as sureties for him.
5.3 We passed a detailed order on 18
th November 2025 when it
came forth in the affidavit filed by Deputy Director, DRI, Mumbai
Zonal Unit, that the address provided by the surety was non-
existent and that the name of the employer he provided had made
a categorical statement that no such person had ever been
employed with them. The relevant parts of the order are as below:
“3. In response thereto, the petitioner filed an
affidavit. We have perused the said affidavit dated
13.11.2025, filed by Sri Kumar Ambrish, Deputy
Director, DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit. Paragraph
nos.2.8, 2.9, 2.10 and 2.13 thereof reads as
under:
2.8. As the accused was not traceable,
details of the Surety have also been verified
and found to be non-existent. The DRI
officers visited the address provided by the
surety - Shri Sushil Balkrushna Jadhav,
Room No 516, Gangabai Mansion, Parel,
Mumbai, on 31.10.2025 (Annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure A12 - pg. 29-31),
and the same was found to be non-existent.
The residents and members of the society
also stated that they are not aware of any
person by name Shri Sushil Balkrushna
Jadhav, associated with the said premises
i.e. Gangabai Mansion.
2.9. Further, DRI officers visited the office
premises of M/s Emkay Global Financial
Services Ltd., which the surety, Shri Sushil
Balkrushna Jadhav had declared as his
employer firm. M/s Emkay Global
Financial Services Ltd., vide its letter dated
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 11
06.11.2025 (Annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure A13 pg. 32), categorically stated
that no such person was ever employed in
their office.
2.10. As the Surety, Shri Sushil
Balkrushna Jadhav, had provided his bank
account details in the Surety Bond, the
Petitioner, vide letter dated 10.11.2025
(Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure
A14 pg. 33), approached the concerned
IDBI Bank, Parel Branch, Mumbai, seeking
KYC details, the account opening form, and
other related information available with the
bank. The Bank, vide e -mail dated
12.11.2025 (Annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure A15-pg. 34-40), informed that no
such account exists with them either in the
name of Shri Sushil Balkrushna Jadhav, or
with said PAN or Aadhar number, and that
the customer ID number mentioned
belongs to some other customer of a
different branch.
… … …
2.13. As the Surety could not be traced
and the address provided was found to be
incomplete or non-existent, the Petitioner,
vide application dated 12.11.2025
(Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure
A19 pg. 46-50) has approached the Trial
Court seeking issuance of notice to Surety
Shri Sushil Balkrushna Jadhav and
forfeiture of the surety bond furnished by
him under the provisions of Form 50 read
with Section 491 of BNSS, cancellation of
bond under section 492 of BNSS, and
issuance of a non-bailable warrant to
secure his presence before the Court.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has also sought
the Court's permission to ask the advocate
who had identified the Surety and signed
on the surety papers, about the identity,
address, credentials, and whereabouts of
the surety.”
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 12
4. The affidavit brings to light yet another
serious issue concerning the manner in which
Courts are accepting sureties, more particularly,
in cases involving heinous offences. It has been
brought to our notice by the learned Additional
Solicitor General that in at least 38 cases
investigated by the Narcotics Control Bureau
(NCB) and in 9 cases investigated by the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), foreign
nationals, particularly from Nigeria and Nepal,
have absconded, after furnishing sureties which
perhaps may be fake.
5. The problem of impersonation by sureties
appears to be rampant in certain States. Whether
the surety module prepared by the National
Informatics Centre for Trial Courts in India is
functional and operational, and what other
mechanism exists for verificati on of the
genuineness of sureties, are issues which, in our
considered view, require a comprehensive
examination.
6. In this background, we implead the Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) as a party
respondent to the instant petition. Mr. Gurmeet
Singh Makker, learned counsel, accepts notice on
behalf of UIDAI; hence, the formal service of
notice is waived.
… … …
9. Before issuing any further directions, we call
upon the concerned Trial Court Judge (Mr. V.M.
Sundale, learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mumbai) to furnish a detailed report relating to
the acceptance of sureties in the present case,
including the steps taken by him for complying
with the statutory requirements. Such a report
shall be submitted within a period of two weeks
from today.
(emphasis supplied)
Vide the very same order dated 18
th November 2025, Mr. Sidharth
Luthra, learned senior counsel, was appointed amicus curiae (pro
bono) to assist the Court.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 13
5.4 The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
7 was
given liberty to file its affidavit by order dated 17
th December 2025.
5.5 Considering the issue of sureties, which is undoubtedly one
of everyday application, all the States and Union Territories were
asked to provide the relevant provisions and rules applicable in
their States to Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the Appellant- Union of India. The
same direction was given to all the Standing Counsel for the High
Courts.
5.6 On 27
th February 2026, based on the inputs of all concerned,
the report of the learned amicus curiae was perused and taken on
record.
Analysis And Consideration
The NDPS Act- Scheme & Relevant Provisions
6. In 1961, India was part of the Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs and in 1971, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In
view of these international obligations, the Parliament enacted the
7
MeitY
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 14
NDPS Act, 1985
8, replacing the Opium Acts of 1857 and 1878 and
the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930.
Let us understand the scheme of the NDPS Act at the outset.
6.1 Chapter I houses the definitions and the power to amend the
list of psychotropic substances. Section 2 provides definitions of
key terms such as narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and
cannabis.
6.2 Chapter II establishes the framework, setting out the basis of
the functioning of the provisions of the Act. Section 4 requires the
Central Government to take measures to prevent and combat drug
abuse and illicit trafficking, and Sections 5 and 7 provide for the
appointment of officers at the Central and State level.
6.3 Chapter III houses the principle of total prohibition with
limited exceptions. This is the primary basis of the Act. Section 8
is the main provision, which postulates that activities such as
production, possession, sale, purchase, transport, and
consumption of narcotic drugs are prohibited. What is exempted
from being prohibited thereby is the use thereof for medical or
scientific purpose, as may be permitted under law. Section 9 grants
8
https://narcoticsindia.nic.in/Notifications/National_Policy_on_NDPS_published.pdf
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 15
power to the Government to regulate and permit such activities
through rules and licences. What can be understood as the intent
of the Legislature, therefore, is not absolute prohibition but strictly
controlled regulation.
6.4 Chapter IV contains Offences and Penalties. Sections 20, 21,
and 22 deal with the punishment for contravention in relation to
cannabis, manufactured drugs, and psychotropic substances ,
respectively. Punishments for the offences under this Act are based
on the quantity of the substance found; in other words, a small
quantity carries a relatively lesser punishment as against a
commercial quantity, which, as the name suggests is much larger.
Sections 23 and 24 also impute liability on those who import and
export. Section 27 provides the punishment for consumption of
any drug or substance listed in this Act, and 27A provides
punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.
Deterrence underlies all the provisions in this chapter. Sections 36
to 36D discuss the constitution of Special Courts and the powers
exercisable by such Courts. Section 37, which provides that
offences under this Act would be cognizable and non-bailable, is of
prime relevance for us.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 16
6.5 Chapter V (Sections 41 to 68) details the procedure to be
followed in investigating and prosecuting offences under this Act.
For instance, Section 42 provides for the power of entry, search,
seizure and arrest without warrant and authorisation; Section 52A
details the procedure for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances.
It is important to note that Sections 35, which is part of Chapter
IV, and 54, which is part of Chapter V, both put in place
presumptions regarding culpable mental state and possession of
illicit articles, respectively. This means that once the prosecution
establishes basic facts, the burden of proof is shifted onto the
accused.
6.6 How to deal with forfeiture of illegally acquired property is
given in Chapter VA of the Act. Section 68A extensively provides
for the application of this chapter; Section 68B provides for a list
of definitions to be used under this Chapter; Sections 68F and 68I
provide for seizure or freezing of illegally acquired property and
forfeiture of property in certain cases, respectively.
7. The available statistics reveal that there has been a sharp
increase in the number of offences registered under this Act-almost
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 17
doubling between 2018 and 2023. Data from the NCRB verifies this
statement. The same is as follows:
Category 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Total States 70,447 57,600 75,881 1,11,823 1,16,051
Total UTs 2,274 2,206 2,450 3,413 3,959
TOTAL (ALL
INDIA)
72,721 59,806 78,331 1,15,236 1,20,010
8. Time and again, the dangerousness of offences involving this
Act has been highlighted by this Court. For instance, a coordinate
Bench in Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab
9, while considering the
imposition of higher sentence in a case involving 1kg heroin,
observed:
“16. While considering the submission on behalf of the
accused on mitigating and aggravating circumstances and
the request to take lenient view and not to impose the
punishment higher than the minimum sentence provided
under the Act it should be borne in mind that in a murder
case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons,
while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are
instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to
a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable; it
causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society;
they are a hazard to the society. Organised activities of the
underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and
illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances shall lay to
drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public,
particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and
9
(2021) 6 SCC 558
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 18
the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions
in the recent years. Therefore, it has a deadly impact on the
society as a whole…”
(emphasis supplied)
In Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh
10, this Court observed:-
“17. An offence relating to narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances is more heinous than a
culpable homicide because the latter affects only an
individual while the former affects and leaves its
deleterious impact on the society, besides shattering the
economy of the nation as well. That the legislature
intended to make the offences under the Act so serious
to be dealt with sternly and with an iron hand is made
clear by providing for enhanced penalties, including even
death sentence, in certain class of cases, when convicted
for the second time.”
(emphasis supplied)
Bail under Special Statutes
9. The Latin maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant” means
that general laws do not override special laws. When two statutes
seem to apply to the same subject, one being general and the other
dealing with a specific issue, the special law prevails within its field.
This helps to ensure that the purpose behind creating specific rules
for particular situations is not defeated by broader provisions. This
becomes clear with examples. The Companies Act, 2013 is a special
law dealing with company matters, while the Code of Civil
10
(2004) 2 SCC 590 (2-Judge Bench)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 19
Procedure, 1908 lays down general rules for civil litigation. For
disputes related to company matters, procedure under the
Companies Act is to be followed instead of the general civil
procedure. A second example is the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,
which provides for a mechanism to deal with complaints about
defective goods or deficiency in services. They are handled by
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions because the special law
offers a more direct remedy. Overall, it is a simple rule of
interpretation. When a general law and a special law both are
applicable, the special law is to be given preference. The examples
referred to here pertain to civil actions. Regarding criminal law too,
there are a number of examples, a few of which will be discussed
further in this judgment.
10. Before proceeding to the special statutes, it is important to
take note of ‘bail’ under general criminal law so as to facilitate the
juxtaposition of the same. As far back as 1931, the Allahabad High
Court in Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson
11 had held, in regard to the
Meerut Conspiracy Case, that “bail should be the rule and refusal
of bail should be the exception” as per C.R. Mukerji J. Further,
11
1931 SCC OnLine All 14 (two-Judge Bench)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 20
Boys J. in the same judgment, with respect to the objective of
incarceration of an accused, observed:
“As to the object of keeping an accused person in detention
during the trial, it has been stated that the object is not
punishment; that to keep an accused person under arrest
with the object of punishing him on the assumption that he
is guilty, even if eventually he is acquitted, is improper. This
is most manifest. The only legitimate purposes to be served
by keeping a person under trial in detention are to prevent
repetition of the offence with which he is charged, where
there is apparently danger of such repetition, and to secure
his attendance at the trial. The first of these purposes
clearly to some extent involves an assumption of the
accused's guilt, but the very trial itself is based on a prima
facie assumption of the accused's guilt and it is impossible
to hold that in some circumstances it is not a proper ground
to be considered. The main purpose, however, is manifestly
to secure the attendance of the accused.
The matters for consideration in this particular case, to
which I have given my best attention, may be enumerated
as follows:—
(a) Whether on the facts set out in the affidavit filed on
behalf of the Crown and in the replies written and oral of
the applicant there is or is not reasonable ground for
believing that the applicant has committed the offence with
which he is charged. The applicant has contended that he
is being prosecuted only because he holds certain opinions.
It is a contention which, on the materials set out in the
affidavit for the Crown, prima facie has no force in it;
whether it be established eventually or not, the suggestion
for the Crown is that he is promulgating his opinions and
endeavouring to persuade others to those opinions with a
view to a resort to violence sooner or later to enforce those
opinions. It is not desirable, in view of the fact that it will
be for the Sessions Judge to pronounce judgment on the
merits of the evidence, for me to say anything further, but
it is necessary to say this much to make it clear that in
passing the order at which I shall arrive I in no way lose
sight of the gravity of the charge or of the nature of the
evidence.
(b) The nature and the gravity of the charge.
(c) The severity or degree of the punishment which might
follow in the particular circumstances in case of a
conviction.
(d) The danger of the applicant absconding if he is released
on bail.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 21
(e) The character, means and standing of the applicant.
(f) The danger of the alleged offence being continued or
repeated, assuming that the accused is guilty of having
committed that offence in the past. In view of the particular
circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence as
to the particular conspiracy I do not consider there is
serious danger of this.
(g) The danger of witnesses being tampered with. In the
present case the prosecution is closed.
(h) Opportunity to the applicant to prepare his defence.
....”
(emphasis supplied)
This has long been applied, reapplied and emphasised in the
variety of situations. For instance, in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI
12,
where the Appellant apparently was accused of having caused loss
to the state exchequer, the Court observed:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down
from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused
person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that
detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a
cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity
demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in
custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial
but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this
country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal
liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should
be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has
not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should
be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will
12
(2012) 1 SCC 40
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 22
tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of
refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any
imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive
content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail
as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the
accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to
an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste
of imprisonment as a lesson.”
(emphasis supplied)
Another example is Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.
13 where the
Court, while dealing with an offence under Section 420 IPC,
granted bail. Still further, we may refer to an older matter in Babu
Singh v. State of U.P.
14, wherein this Court, dealing with the
question of bail in respect of persons that had originally been
acquitted by the Trial Court and the State had successfully
challenged the said acquittal before the High Court, held that even
though this Court itself had on an earlier occasion rejected their
bail, a second bail application would be maintainable, and
accordingly, released them on bail in connection with a case under
Section 302, IPC. Just recently, there was another instance, in
Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra
15, the Bench
comprising JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi JJ., granted bail to an
accused who was an undertrial on the charge of murder, on
13
(2018) 3 SCC 22
14
(1978) 1 SCC 579
15
2026 SCC OnLine SC 810
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 23
account of the fact that he had been in pre-trial custody for more
than four years.
11. When it comes to special statutes, however, the script is
flipped. It should be clarified at this stage itself as to what is meant
by special statutes. Within the realm of criminal law, various
statutes have been enacted by the Legislature dealing with a
particular facet of crime. For instance, the one in which the present
proceedings arise, or the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002
16 or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967,
17 etc. These are
special laws. Each of them deals with a particular aspect of crime,
and accordingly, the rigours thereof prescribe certain procedures,
conditions, etc., which must be scrupulously complied with. After
all, it is a well-settled position that penal statutes must be strictly
construed and implemented. To facilitate a comparative
understanding, let us look to the grant of bail under these statutes.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
11.1 Under the PMLA, Sections 24 and 45 are relevant.
“24. Burden of proof.-- When a person is accused
of having committed the offence under section 3,
the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are
untainted property shall be on the accused.”
16
PMLA
17
UAPA
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 24
…
“45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no
person accused of an offence punishable for a term
of imprisonment of more than three years under
Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given
an opportunity to oppose the application for
such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that he
is not guilty of such offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of
sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm,
may be released on bail, if the Special Court so
directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not
take cognizance of any offence punishable under
section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made
by—
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a
State Government authorised in writing in
this behalf by the Central Government by a
general or special order made in this behalf by
that Government.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
any other provision of this Act, no police officer
shall investigate into an offence under this Act
unless specifically authorised, by the Central
Government by a general or special order, and,
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in
sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or any other law for the time being in force
on granting of bail.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 25
11.1.1 In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India
18, a
Bench of three Judges, dealt extensively with the scope, object and
provisions of PMLA. It was held as follows:
“288. The successive decisions of this Court
dealing with analogous provision have stated that
the court at the stage of considering the
application for grant of bail, is expected to
consider the question from the angle as to
whether the accused was possessed of the
requisite mens rea. The court is not required to
record a positive finding that the accused had not
committed an offence under the Act. The court
ought to maintain a delicate balance between a
judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order
granting bail much before commencement of trial.
The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh
the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a
finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
Further, the court is required to record a finding
as to the possibility of the accused committing a
crime which is an offence under the Act after
grant of bail.
…
303. … The court will not weigh the evidence to
find the guilt of the accused which is, of course,
the work of the trial court. The court is only
required to place its view based on probability on
the basis of reasonable material collected during
investigation and the said view will not be taken
into consideration by the trial court in recording
its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial
which is based on the evidence adduced during
the trial. As explained by this Court
in Nimmagadda Prasad [Nimmagadda
Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 575] , the words used in Section 45 of the
2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for believing”
which means the court has to see only if there is
a genuine case against the accused and the
prosecution is not required to prove the charge
beyond reasonable doubt.
18
(2023) 12 SCC 1
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 26
… … …
315. Suffice it to observe that it would be
preposterous and illogical to hold that if a person
applies for bail after arrest, he/she can be
granted that relief only if the twin conditions are
fulfilled in addition to other stipulations
predicated in the 1973 Code; but another person,
who is yet to be arrested in connection with the
same offence of money laundering, will not be
required to fulfil such twin conditions whilst
considering application for grant of bail under
Section 438 of the 1973 Code. The relief of bail,
be it in the nature of regular bail or anticipatory
bail, is circumscribed by the stipulations
predicated in Section 45 of the 2002 Act. The
underlying principles of Section 45 of the 2002
Act would get triggered in either case before the
relief of bail in connection with the offence of
money laundering is taken forward. Any other
view would be counterproductive and defeat the
purposes and objects behind the stringent
provision enacted by Parliament for prevention of
money laundering and to combat the menace on
account of such activity which directly impacts
the financial systems, including the sovereignty
and integrity of the country.”
(emphasis supplied)
11.1.2 On the issue in Manish Sisodia v. CBI
19, a co-ordinate
Bench made pertinent observations as follows:
“34. Detention or jail before being pronounced
guilty of an offence should not become
punishment without trial. If the trial gets
protracted despite assurances of the prosecution,
and it is clear that case will not be decided within
a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be
meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to
an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to
equate these cases with those punishable with
death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more
like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder,
19
(2024) 12 SCC 691
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 27
cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom,
mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where
100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded.
The allegations have to be established and
proven.
35. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled
with incarceration for a long period, depending on
the nature of the allegations, should be read into
Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML
Act. The reason is that the constitutional
mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right
of the person charged of an offence and not
convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy
trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons
not attributable to the accused, the court, unless
there are good reasons, may well be guided to
exercise the power to grant bail. This would be
truer where the trial would take years.”
(emphasis supplied)
11.1.3 In Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate
20,
another co-ordinate Bench made pertinent observations as follows:
“52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh
case [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC
(Cri) 222] further observed that, over a period of
time, the trial courts and the High Courts have
forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From
our experience, we can say that it appears that
the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to
play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle
that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is,
at times, followed in breach. On account of non-
grant of bail even in straightforward open-and-
shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge
number of bail petitions thereby adding to the
huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts
and the High Courts should recognise the
principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.”
(emphasis supplied)
20
(2024) 12 SCC 660
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 28
11.1.4. Recently, in Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate
21,
it has been observed by Alok Aradhe J, writing for the court, that if
the State or the prosecuting agency does not have the wherewithal
to provide for or protect the rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, then it should not oppose the prayer for bail.
11.1.5. From the above reference to judgments, it is clear that
while the twin conditions as mentioned in Section 45 of the PMLA,
are strict and must be complied with, but at the same time , it
cannot be said that by virtue of the presumption embedded in
Section 24, securing an order of bail becomes well-nigh impossible
when the facts and circumstances of each case are viewed from the
lens of “broad probabilities” as observed in Vijay Madanlal (supra)
while maintaining a distinction between a judgment of
conviction/acquittal versus an order of bail, taking care not to
arrive at a positive finding regarding the commission of the offence.
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967
11.2 Now, we move to the second special law, i.e., UAPA. Under
this legislation, Section 43D is titled as ‘Modified application of
certain provisions of the Code’, i.e., the Code of Criminal Procedure.
21
2026 SCC OnLine SC 30
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 29
1973
22, and of course, now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
23. It provides, among other things, as
follows:-
“43D. Modified application of certain provisions
of the Code.—
…
(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply
in relation to any case involving the arrest of any
person accused of having committed an offence
punishable under this Act.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code, no person accused of an offence punishable
under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in
custody, be released on bail or on his own bond
unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity of being heard on the application for
such release: Provided that such accused person
shall not be released on bail or on his own bond
if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the
report made under section 173 of the Code is of
the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusation against such person
is prima facie true.
(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in
sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions
under the Code or any other law for the time being
in force on granting of bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a
person accused of an offence punishable under
this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has
entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally
except in very exceptional circumstances and for
reasons to be recorded in writing.”
22
CrPC
23
BNSS
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 30
11.2.1 It was held in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
24,
as follows:
“23. By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (5), it
is the duty of the Court to be satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against the accused is prima facie true
or otherwise. Our attention was invited to the
decisions of this Court, which has had an
occasion to deal with similar special provisions in
TADA and Mcoca. The principle underlying those
decisions may have some bearing while
considering the prayer for bail in relation to the
offences under the 1967 Act as well. Notably,
under the special enactments such as
TADA, Mcoca and the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court is
required to record its opinion that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused
is “not guilty” of the alleged offence. There is a
degree of difference between the satisfaction to be
recorded by the Court that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is “not
guilty” of such offence and the satisfaction to be
recorded for the purposes of the 1967 Act that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accusation against such person is “prima
facie” true. By its very nature, the expression
“prima facie true” would mean that the
materials/evidence collated by the investigating
agency in reference to the accusation against the
accused concerned in the first information report,
must prevail until contradicted and overcome or
disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it,
shows the complicity of such accused in the
commission of the stated offence. It must be good
and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact
or the chain of facts constituting the stated
offence, unless rebutted or contradicted. In one
sense, the degree of satisfaction is lighter when
the Court has to opine that the accusation is
“prima facie true”, as compared to the opinion of
the accused “not guilty” of such offence as
required under the other special enactments. In
24
(2019) 5 SCC 1
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 31
any case, the degree of satisfaction to be recorded
by the Court for opining that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against
the accused is prima facie true, is lighter than the
degree of satisfaction to be recorded for
considering a discharge application or framing of
charges in relation to offences under the 1967
Act. …”
(emphasis supplied)
11.2.2 A Bench of three Judges in Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb
25, speaking through Surya Kant J. (as the learned Chief
Justice presently, then was) while dealing with a case involving the
use of country made bombs as part of a larger conspiracy held that
a person who was an undertrial and had been in prison for more
than five years could not be further detained. It was held as follows:
“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of
statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the
UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the
constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of
violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed,
both the restrictions under a statute as well as
the powers exercisable under constitutional
jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at
commencement of proceedings, the courts are
expected to appreciate the legislative policy
against grant of bail but the rigours of such
provisions will melt down where there is no
likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration
already undergone has exceeded a substantial
part of the prescribed sentence. Such an
approach would safeguard against the possibility
of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or
for wholesale breach of constitutional right to
speedy trial.
25
(2021) 3 SCC 713
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 32
18. Adverting to the case at hand, we are
conscious of the fact that the charges levelled
against the respondent are grave and a serious
threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at
the threshold, we would have outrightly turned
down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping
in mind the length of the period spent by him in
custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being
completed anytime soon, the High Court appears
to have been left with no other option except to
grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a
balance between the appellant's right to lead
evidence of its choice and establish the charges
beyond any doubt and simultaneously the
respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of
our Constitution have been well protected.
19. Yet another reason which persuades us to
enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section 43-
D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent
than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Unlike the NDPS
Act where the competent court needs to be
satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty
and that he is unlikely to commit another offence
while on bail; there is no such precondition under
UAPA. Instead, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
merely provides another possible ground for the
competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the
well-settled considerations like gravity of the
offence, possibility of tampering with evidence,
influencing the witnesses or chance of the
accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.”
(emphasis supplied)
11.2.3. There is a line of similar cases, viz. Vernon v. State of
Maharashtra
26, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra
27,
and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
28, where
it has been held that, despite the stringency of Section 43-D, rights
26
(2023) 15 SCC 56
27
(2024) 6 SCC 591
28
(2024) 9 SCC 813
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 33
under Article 21 would still have a large role to play in the grant of
bail.
11.2.4 The recent judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT
of Delhi)
29, Aravind Kumar J. held that in special statutes such as
the UAPA, when the question of bail arises, it has to be kept in
mind that delay cannot be the sole ground and instead it is the
starting point for heightened scrutiny by the Court where
additional factors, including the gravity of the offence; the role of
the accused; the strength of the prima facie case; the extent to
which prolonged incarceration may be offensive to Article 21;
extracted as follows, has to be considered:
“81. The correct application of Section 43D(5),
therefore, requires the Court to undertake a
structured inquiry confined to the following:
i. whether the prosecution material,
accepted as it stands, discloses a prima
facie case satisfying the statutory
ingredients of the offence alleged;
ii. whether the role attributed to the
accused reflects a real and meaningful
nexus to the unlawful activity or terrorist
activity proscribed under the Act, as
distinguished from mere association or
peripheral presence; and
iii. whether the statutory threshold is
crossed qua the individual accused,
without embarking upon an assessment
reserved after full-fledged trial.”
29
2026 SCC OnLine SC 10
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 34
11.2.5 In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation
Agency
30, Ujjal Bhuyan J., while dealing with a case involving 3.2
Kgs. of heroin and a large amount of cash, observed that the holding
in Gulfisha (supra) discussed above and Gurwinder Singh v.
State of Punjab
31 has taken a somewhat restrictive view which
does not accord with Najeeb (supra). It has been held that the test
as laid down in Section 43D (5) does not restrict the power of a
constitutional Court to grant bail, when the liberty of the accused
has been infringed for a prolonged period of time. It further held
that Najeeb (supra) did not hold that the mere passage of time
entitles an accused to bail; instead, it held that the continued
application of the Section becomes “constitutionally suspect”
32,
when incarceration begins to be unduly prolonged, and there is
unlikeliness of the conclusion of the trial.
11.2.6 What can be seen from the above decisions is that while
Watali (supra) took a strict view, subsequent judgments discussed
above firmly embedded Article 21 consideration as a factor for bail.
Gulfisha (supra) took a view that when a violation of Article 21 is
30
2026 SCC OnLine SC 881
31
(2024) 5 SCC 403
32
Para 27.11
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 35
alleged, a more careful scrutiny is to be undertaken by the Court
and that, in and of itself, cannot entitle the accused to the relief of
bail. However, Andrabi (supra) reasserted the singular application
of Article 21 as being unaffected by statutory rigours in the
particular scenario of prolonged incarceration and long pending
trials. In view of the somewhat differing stands taken by different
Benches of this Court, a reference
33 has been sought to a larger
Bench of this Court to clarify the scope of bail under this statute.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985
11.3 We now move to the third special law, the one in which the
present proceedings arise and ergo, the most important one for us
presently, NDPS Act, 1985. Section 35 embeds the reverse
presumption against the accused, and Section 37 deals with the
twin conditions prescribed for grant of bail. They read, respectively,
as hereinbelow:
“35. Presumption of culpable mental state.—(1) In
any prosecution for an offence under this Act
which requires a culpable mental state of the
accused, the court shall presume the existence of
such mental state but it shall be a defence for the
accused to prove the fact that he had no such
mental state with respect to the act charged as an
offence in that prosecution.
33
SLP(Crl.) 2867/2026, order dated 22
nd
May 2026
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 36
Explanation.—In this section “culpable mental
state” includes intention motive, knowledge of a
fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said
to be proved only when the court believes it to
exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely
when its existence is established by a
preponderance of probability.”
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall
be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable
for 3 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or
section 27A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the
limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time
being in force on granting of bail.”
(emphasis supplied)
11.3.1 In Union of India v. Ram Samujh
34, a co-ordinate Bench
held that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed
by Section 37, and it was held that the object and intent of the
statute, which was enacted to check the menace of drugs in the
society, has to be followed mandatorily.
34
(1999) 9 SCC 429
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 37
11.3.2 A three-Judge Bench in Narcotics Control Bureau v.
Mohit Aggarwal
35, while discussing earlier judgment in Collector
of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira
36 and State of Kerala v.
Rajesh
37, explained the meaning of the term ‘reasonable grounds’
as mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). It was held:
“14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable
grounds” used in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 37 would mean credible and plausible
grounds for the court to believe that the accused
person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For
arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and
circumstances must exist in a case that can
persuade the court to believe that the accused
person would not have committed such an
offence. Dovetailed with the aforesaid satisfaction
is an additional consideration that the accused
person is unlikely to commit any offence while on
bail.
15. We may clarify that at the stage of examining
an application for bail in the context of Section 37
of the Act, the court is not required to record a
finding that the accused person is not guilty. The
court is also not expected to weigh the evidence
for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused
has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or
not. The entire exercise that the court is expected
to undertake at this stage is for the limited
purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus
is on the availability of reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offences that he has been charged with and he is
unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while
on bail.
…
19. ... The length of the period of his custody or
the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and
the trial has commenced are by themselves not
35
(2022) 18 SCC 374
36
(2004) 3 SCC 549
37
(2020) 12 SCC 122
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 38
considerations that can be treated as persuasive
grounds for granting relief to the respondent
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
11.3.3 In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)
38, it has been
observed that:
“21. A plain and literal interpretation of the
conditions under Section 37 (i.e. that court
should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty
and would not commit any offence) would
effectively exclude grant of bail altogether,
resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned
preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only
manner in which such special conditions as
enacted under Section 37 can be considered
within constitutional parameters is where the
court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look
at the material on record (whenever the bail
application is made) that the accused is not
guilty. Any other interpretation would result in
complete denial of the bail to a person accused of
offences such as those enacted under Section 37
of the NDPS Act.
22. The standard to be considered therefore, is
one, where the court would look at the material in
a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the
accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of
this Court have, therefore, emphasised that the
satisfaction which courts are expected to record
i.e. that the accused may not be guilty, is only
prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which
does not call for meticulous examination of the
materials collected during investigation (as held
in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik [Union of
India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624 : (2009)
1 SCC (Cri) 831] ). Grant of bail on ground of
undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered
by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of
Section 436-A which is applicable to offences
under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar
Antil [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC
51 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 1]…”
38
(2023) 18 SCC 166
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 39
(emphasis supplied)
11.3.4 This Bench, through A.G.Masih. J. in the recent Order,
State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh
39, observed that when it
comes to special statutes, Article 21 considerations are to be made
within the framework of the statute. The relevant extract is as
follows:
“10. The impugned order, on its own showing,
does not record the satisfaction mandated under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Far from
recording such satisfaction, the High Court has
gone on to observe that ‘the rigours of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted
bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.’ Such
an approach is plainly contrary to the settled law
laid down by this Court and deserves to be set
aside on this ground alone. The right to speedy
trial, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, is
undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right. That
said, in matters governed by a special enactment
such as the NDPS Act, particularly where the
recovery is of commercial quantity, the said right
under Article 21 must be exercised within the
framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed
into service solely on the ground of delay to
override it. The constitutional right
under Article 21 and the special provision of law
under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read
harmoniously and not placed in opposition to
each other. The High Court, by failing to record
its satisfaction on the twin conditions under
Section 37, has in this Court's view, committed
an error.”
(emphasis supplied)
39
2026 SCC OnLine SC 671
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 40
11.3.5 Another recent instance is Rajadurai v. State of Tamil
Nadu
40 where this Court (J.B Pardiwala and K.V.Viswanathan JJ)
granted bail to an accused in a crime involving almost 23 Kgs of
Ganja on the ground that they had been in judicial custody for over
a year and not even one witness stood examined.
11.3.6 We may once again turn to observations made in Najeeb
(supra), as follows:
“19. Yet another reason which persuades us to
enlarge the respondent on bail is that Section
43-D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less
stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Unlike the NDPS Act where the competent court
needs to be satisfied that prima facie the
accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to
commit another offence while on bail; there is no
such precondition under UAPA. Instead, Section
43-D(5) of the UAPA merely provides another
possible ground for the competent court to
refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled
considerations like gravity of the offence,
possibility of tampering with evidence,
influencing the witnesses or chance of the
accused evading the trial by absconsion, etc.”
(emphasis supplied)
11.3.7 The conclusion that can be drawn from the above
discussion is that when it comes to cases under this special law
(NDPS Act 1985) and particularly involving commercial quantities,
40
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4729/2026
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 41
a general hesitation pervades. In complying with the twin
conditions, a broad perusal of the evidence is called for, not one
that dives into minutiae, or a detailed examination of all material.
Article 21 considerations are deservedly at the centre, but they are
not exercised independent of the statutory rigours.
12. A close analysis of all three statutes discussed above shows
that this Court’s approach has evolved differently under each
statute.
12.1 Under the UAPA, an in-detail examination of the evidence at
bail stage is avoided. National security, as a ground, operates in full
force but even then, the majesty of Article 21 grants accused
persons the right to agitate against prolonged incarceration.
12.2 The position under PMLA is slightly different. The twin
conditions aren’t the only factor that the Court considers during
proceeding for bail; instead, adjudication may also involve looking
into evidence qua financial material, the alleged proceeds of crime,
and the role attributed to the accused.
12.3 The judgments rendered under the NDPS Act show that the
statutory burden placed upon the accused is exceptionally high,
especially in cases involving commercial quantities. As evidenced
by the observations in Najeeb (supra) that the conditions therein
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 42
are even stricter than the UAPA. At the same time, the standard
under this legislation differs from UAPA cases in one important
respect, unlike in the latter, where a “prima facie look” is all that is
permitted, in the former the Courts do engage with issues such
as recovery, conscious possession, procedural compliance, and
statutory safeguards governing search and seizure. This is a well-
established position, not requiring us to buttress our statement
with reference to case law.
12.4 This Court has acknowledged that indefinite incarceration
without trial metamorphoses the process into the punishment. And
now, with the reference in Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT
of Delhi
41, having been made, the ‘jury is out’ on this question.
12.5 All of the special laws considered above converge in their
positions on the point that they cannot become vehicles of indefinite
detention. At the same time, the Court has resisted any broad
constitutional dilution of statutory rigour, except when it comes to
the paramountcy of Article 21, the violation of which will have to
be looked at from the facts of a particular case. The scales of justice
attain a peculiar balance in this way. Parliament is competent to,
and accordingly does impose restrictions for extraordinary crimes
41
Crl.A. No. 002795 / 2026 @SLP(Crl.)2876 of 2026 in Order dated 22
nd
May 2026
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 43
& yet, such restrictions still answer to constitutional discipline,
proportionality & personal liberty.
Principles Regarding the Grant of Bail to Foreign Nationals
13. Under all these special laws, as also under the general laws,
there is always the possibility that a person who is not a citizen of
this country may be the perpetrator. Well, bail is the rule and jail is
the exception for them too. Then, what are the aspects or factors
that are to be kept in mind by the Court? Let us examine this.
13.1 In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing
Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India,
42 certain directions were
issued regarding bail in NDPS cases. Those are as follows:
“ 15. …We, therefore, direct as under:
(i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s)
under the Act prescribing a punishment of
imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an
undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in
jail for a period which is not less than half the
punishment provided for the offence with which he is
charged and where he is charged with more than one
offence, the offence providing the highest punishment.
If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the
maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the
said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the
maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the
satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two
sureties for like amount.
42
(1994) 6 SCC 731
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 44
(ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an
offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment
exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall
be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above
provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less
than Rs 50,000 with two sureties for like amount.
(iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an
offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum
imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of
Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released
on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years
provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one
lakh with two sureties for like amount.
(iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the
commission of an offence punishable under Sections
31 and 31-A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be
entitled to be released on bail by virtue of this order.
The directives in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall be
subject to the following general conditions:
(i) The undertrial accused entitled to be released on
bail shall deposit his passport with the learned Judge
of the Special Court concerned and if he does not hold
a passport he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the
form that may be prescribed by the learned Special
Judge. In the latter case the learned Special Judge will,
if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the
statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to
verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall
verify his record and send a reply within three weeks.
If he fails to reply within the said time, the learned
Special Judge will be entitled to act on the statement
of the undertrial accused;
(ii) the undertrial accused shall on being released on
bail present himself at the police station which has
prosecuted him at least once in a month in the case of
those covered under clause (i), once in a fortnight in
the case of those covered under clause (ii) and once in
a week in the case of those covered by clause (iii),
unless leave of absence is obtained in advance from
the Special Judge concerned;
(iii) the benefit of the direction in clauses (ii) and (iii)
shall not be available to those accused persons who
are, in the opinion of the learned Special Judge, for
reasons to be stated in writing, likely to tamper with
evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses;
(iv) in the case of undertrial accused who are
foreigners, the Special Judge shall, besides
impounding their passports, insist on a certificate of
assurance from the Embassy/High Commission of the
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 45
country to which the foreigner-accused belongs, that
the said accused shall not leave the country and shall
appear before the Special Court as and when required;
(v) the undertrial accused shall not leave the area in
relation to which the Special Court is constituted
except with the permission of the learned Special
Judge;
(vi) the undertrial accused may furnish bail by
depositing cash equal to the bail amount;
(vii) the Special Judge will be at liberty to cancel bail if
any of the above conditions are violated or a case for
cancellation of bail is otherwise made out; and
(viii) after the release of the undertrial accused
pursuant to this order, the cases of those undertrials
who have not been released and are in jail will be
accorded priority and the Special Court will proceed
with them as provided in Section 309 of the Code.”
(emphasis supplied)
13.2 In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India
43, while dealing with
writ petitions by individuals who had been asked by the
Government to leave the country by a specified date, despite the
fact that they had been living in India and functioning as Christian
missionaries for years on end, and thereby claimed rights under
Article 21, it was held:
“13. The next point taken on behalf of the
petitioners, that the foreigners also enjoy some
fundamental rights under the Constitution of this
country, is also of not much help to them. The
fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to
Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include
the right to reside and settle in this country, as
mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable
only to the citizens of this country. It was held by
the Constitution Bench in Hans Muller of
Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail,
Calcutta [(1955) 1 SCR 1284 : AIR 1955 SC 367 :
43
(1991) 3 SCC 554
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 46
1955 Cri LJ 876] that the power of the
government in India to expel foreigners is
absolute and unlimited and there is no provision
in the Constitution fettering this discretion. It was
pointed out that the legal position on this aspect
is not uniform in all the countries but so far the
law which operates in India is concerned, the
executive government has unrestricted right to
expel a foreigner. So far the right to be heard is
concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule
about the manner in which a person concerned
has to be given an opportunity to place his case
and it is not claimed that if the authority
concerned had served a notice before passing the
impugned order, the petitioners could have
produced some relevant material in support of
their claim of acquisition of citizenship, which
they failed to do in the absence of a notice.”
(emphasis supplied)
13.3 Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau
44, was a case
where this Court, while observing as under, set aside conditions
requiring the accused to continuously share his Google location
with the police, as also the condition of securing a certificate from
the Embassy of their home country within a specified period of
time:
“10.1. We are dealing with a case of the accused
whose guilt is yet to be established. So long as he
is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence
is applicable. He cannot be deprived of all his
rights guaranteed under Article 21. The courts
must show restrai nt while imposing bail
conditions. Therefore, while granting bail, the
courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only
to the extent required for imposing the bail
conditions warranted by law. Bail conditions
cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of
bail itself. For example, the court may impose a
44
(2024) 8 SCC 415
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 47
condition of periodically reporting to the police
station/court or not travelling abroad without
prior permission. Where circumstances require,
the court may impose a condition restraining an
accused from entering a particular area to protect
the prosecution witnesses or the victims. But the
court cannot impose a condition on the accused
to keep the police constantly informed about his
movement from one place to another. The object
of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant
vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged
on bail. The investigating agency cannot be
permitted to continuously peep into the private
life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing
arbitrary conditions since that will violate the
right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by
Article 21. If a constant vigil is kept on every
movement of the accused released on bail by the
use of technology or otherwise, it will infringe the
rights of the accused guaranteed under Article
21, including the right to privacy. The reason is
that the effect of keeping such constant vigil on
the accused by imposing drastic bail conditions
will amount to keeping the accused in some kind
of confinement even after he is released on bail.
Such a condition cannot be a condition of bail.
… … …
16. Imposing any bail condition which enables
the police/investigating agency to track every
movement of the accused released on bail by
using any technology or otherwise would
undoubtedly violate the right to privacy
guaranteed under Article 21. In this case, the
condition of dropping a pin on Google Maps has
been incorporated without even considering the
technical effect of dropping a pin and the
relevance of the said condition as a condition of
bail. This cannot be a condition of bail. The
condition deserves to be deleted and ordered
accordingly. In some cases, this Court may have
imposed a similar condition. But in those cases,
this Court was not called upon to decide the issue
of the effect and legality of such a condition.”
(emphasis supplied)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 48
13.4 The Delhi High Court in Lambert Kroger v. Enforcement
Directorate
45 while dealing with the bail application of a German
national accused under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973,
which undoubtedly is a special statute, referred to the oft-repeated
saying of bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and as such
released him on bail subject to the conditions that his passport
shall be deposited; he shall not leave the NCT of Delhi; and that he
would report to the Enforcement Officer, every Monday at 11 am.
13.5 From the above judgments as also others, inter alia, Sartori
Livio v. The State (Delhi Admin)
46; Haroub Slaum Sleyoum v.
Shri Abdul Qadir
47 the following principles emerge:
(i) Foreign nationals are entitled to protection under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India;
(ii) The State has power as the sovereign to regulate, restrict and
expel foreign nationals;
(iii) Merely because an accused/convict is a foreigner, the right to
bail cannot be circumscribed. It is permissible to impose special
conditions on them while keeping in view the right to privacy and
personal liberty under Article 21.
45
Crl. M(M). No. 2580/99 decided on February 20, 2000/2000 SCC OnLine Del 213
46
Bail Application No. 89 of 2005/2005 SCC OnLine Del 214
47
Bail Application No.2520 of 2008/2009 SCC OnLine Del 333
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 49
(iv) The conditions of bail must be reasonable, proportionate and
capable of compliance.
Applying the understanding to the Present Facts and
Cancellation of Bail
14. Having understood the position in detail, let us come back to
the case at hand. The respondent-accused had been arrested upon
the statement of the co-accused Ms. Sumi. The offence in question
was committed during the period when he had been released on
bail by the Delhi High Court in relation to a similar offence. The
custody period in relation to the instant FIR was around two and a
half years. We have perused all the orders passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in the bail application. The factum of
proceedings before the Patiala House Court , New Delhi is
conspicuously absent from the zone of consideration. All that has
been said is that since there was no recovery from him, this Court’s
judgment in Tofan Singh supra would apply and, as such, he is
entitled to the relief of bail. Arguably, the insistence on the Union
of India filing its affidavit would be in partial compliance with the
requirement of the prosecuting agency/prosecutor being heard, but
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 50
it does not tell us how the High Court came to the conclusion that
there are ‘reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty’. It is
well established that both these conditions are required to be
fulfilled and not either of them. If the two-and-a-half-year
incarceration of the respondent-accused in the considered view of
the High Court amounted to a violation of Article 21 rights of the
foreigner (as the same is undoubtedly applicable to him), the same
would have functioned as increasing the level of scrutiny of the
actions of the prosecuting agency. Though begging the question, we
put to ourselves, should not the Court have exercised a little
amount of restraint, considering both the past conduct of the
accused and the quantity of contraband involved, also factoring the
person responsible for the delay, if any. In the impugned order,
however, neither is there any discussion of the material presented
warranting conviction, nor is there any discussion about the
possibility of the respondent-accused again not committing such a
crime.
15. There is another aspect which needs to be considered. It is a
matter of record that the respondent-accused had been convicted
in an NDPS case by the Patiala House Court. In that view of the
matter, Section 31A of the NDPS Act would apply. It reads as under:
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 51
“31A. Death penalty for certain offences after previous
conviction.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in section 31, if any person who has been convicted of
the commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment
of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, any of the
offences punishable under section 19, section 24,
section 27A and for offences involving commercial
quantity of any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, is subsequently convicted of the
commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of,
or criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence relating
to,—
(a) engaging in the production, manufacture,
possession, transportation, import into India, export
from India or transhipment, of the narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances specified under column (1) of
the Table below and involving the quantity which is
equal to or more than the quantity indicated against
each such drug or substance, as specified in column
(2) of the said Table:
TABLE
Particulars of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances Quantity
(1) (2)
(i) … … … …
(ii) … … … …
(iii) Heroin … 1 Kg.
(iv) … … …
(v) … … …
(vi) … … …
(vii) … … …
(viii) … … …
(ix) … … …
(x) … … …
(xi) … … …
(xii) … … …
(xiii) … … …
(xiv) … … …
(b) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the activities specified in clause
(a)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 52
shall be punished with punishment which shall not be less
than the punishment specified in section 31 or with death.”
Undisputedly, the quantity of heroin involved in the present case is
5 Kgs (approx.) and the respondent-accused is allegedly the master
mind of the crime. Whether or not he is actually so, was a matter
to be determined at trial by leading proper evidence. Given that
Section 31A of the NDPS Act applies at the threshold of 1kg, the
death sentence is a real probability as the eventual outcome against
the respondent-accused. Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act states that
the restrictions put in thereby are in addition to those placed by the
CrPC. As such, Section 436A of the CrPC becomes relevant. It reads
as under:
“436A. Maximum period for which an undertrial
prisoner can be detained.—Where a person has,
during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial
under this Code of an offence under any law (not being
an offence for which the punishment of death has been
specified as one of the punishments under that law)
undergone detention for a period extending up to one-
half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified
for that offence under that law, he shall be released by
the Court on his personal bond with or with out
sureties:
Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public
Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing, order the continued detention of such person
for a period longer than one-half of the said period or
release him on bail instead of the personal bond with
or without sureties:
Provided further that no such person shall in any case
be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry
or trial for more than the maximum period of
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 53
imprisonment provided for the said offence under that
law.
Explanation.—In computing the period of detention
under this section for granting bail, the period of
detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by
the accused shall be excluded.”
(emphasis supplied)
Section 479 of the successor legislation, which has been held to be
applicable retrospectively
48, reads:
“479. Maximum period for which under-trial prisoner
can be detained.
(1) Where a person has, during the period of
investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an
offence under any law (not being an offence for which
the punishment of death or life imprisonment has
been specified as one of the punishments under that
law) undergone detention for a period extending up to
one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment
specified for that offence under that law, he shall be
released by the Court on bail:
Provided that where such person is a first -time
offender (who has never been convicted of any offence
in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court,
if he has undergone detention for the period extending
up to one-third of the maximum period of
imprisonment specified for such offence under that
law:
Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the
Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it
in writing, order the continued detention of such
person for a period longer than one-half of the said
period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond:
Provided also that no such person shall in any case be
detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or
trial for more than the maximum period of
imprisonment provided for the said offence under that
law.
Explanation.—In computing the period of detention
under this section for granting bail, the period of
detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by
the accused shall be excluded.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and
subject to the third proviso thereof, where an
48
Para 3 of Writ Petition (C) No. 406 of 2013
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 54
investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence
or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he
shall not be released on bail by the Court.
(3) The Superintendent of jail, where the accused
person is detained, on completion of one -half or
onethird of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as
the case may be, shall forthwith make an application
in writing to the Court to proceed under sub -
section (1) for the release of such person on bail.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. As is clear, even if we take a situation where the quantity with
which the respondent-accused has been associated with was not so
large, the sentence to be given to him would have ranged from ten
to twenty years. In this case, since capital punishment was in play,
the protection of Sections 436A of the CrPC/479 of the BNSS would
not apply.
17. Considering the totality of the factual matrix, o n 19
th
September 2025, we had stayed the operation of the impugned bail
order and directed the DGPM, to take steps to arrest the
respondent-accused. It is also a matter of record that despite the
Look Out Notice
49 having been issued, and other steps having been
taken by the concerned authorities, the respondent-accused could
not be arrested. Simply put, he jumped the bail.
In these circumstances, the present appeal is no longer a
petition against a grant of bail but is instead a proceeding for
49
LON
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 55
cancellation of bail because the conditions imposed for grant of bail
have been violated. Hence, the bail granted in terms of the
impugned order stands cancelled.
The present case acquires great importance, for the reason
that upon orders of this Court, the accused was directed to be
arrested; the authorities undertook a verification of the sureties
submitted on his behalf and found the same to be fake.
In the next part of our opinion, we deal with this issue.
The Issue Regarding Sureties
18. The report of the National Crimes Record Bureau as of 2023
states that 2546 crimes were committed by foreigners. The
following is a table that shows the distribution of these offences by
the country of origin of the accused/offender:
Rank Country Total cases
1 Bangladesh 3214
2 Nigeria 472
3 Nepal 336
4 Myanmar 275
5 Other African
countries
112
6 Sri Lanka 134
7 Pakistan 56
8 Other Asian
countries
47
9 Other SAARC
countries
46
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 56
10 Russia 24
In each of these cases, sureties assume an important role. They are
the only link of the Court with the accused. Although we do not
know the exact number of people from these 2546 cases who have
been arrested and/or released on bail, we do know that at least 47
other persons are in similar situations, as per a statement made at
the bar, as the respondent accused i.e., they are absconding, and
the sureties furnished by them are fake.
The following tables show the number of foreign nationals arrested
in drug cases by drug law enforcement agencies between 2020-
2024; the number of cases registered under NDPS against foreign
nationals during this time; the total quantum of drugs seized in
India during 2021 to 2025
50; and seizure of heroin during 2021 to
2024:
FOREIGN NATIONALS ARRESTED IN DRUG CASES (BY DLEAs)
Nationality 2024
51
2023
52
2022
53
2021
54
2020
55
50
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2223093®=48&lang=2
51
https://narcoordindia.gov.in/narcoordindia/Periodicals/1758191182-4293-DOC-ncb-
annual-report-2024.pdf
52
https://narcoordindia.gov.in/narcoordindia/Periodicals/1732276895-3313-DOC-ncb-
annual-report-2023-24.pdf
53
https://narcoordindia.gov.in/narcoordindia/Periodicals/1732276799-6003-DOC-
ar2022.pdf
54
https://narcoordindia.gov.in/narcoordindia/Periodicals/1661948610-1548-DOC-
annual%20report%202021.pdf
55
https://narcoordindia.gov.in/narcoordindia/Periodicals/1656248257-6886-DOC-
2020.pdf
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 57
Bangladesh 18 24 63 - 2
Nigeria 106 144 139 87 38
Nepal 203 284 175 115 57
Myanmar 25 62 45 22 21
Sri Lanka No data
found
No data
found
2 17 11
Pakistan No data
found
4 14 10 5
Russia No data
found
5 4 1 8
QUANTITY OF DRUGS SEIZED IN PAST 5 YEARS
S.NO. Year Quantity (in Kg) Value (in Crores)
1. 2021 16,09,612 25,241
2. 2022 12,53,662 19,922
3. 2023 13,89,725 17,179
4. 2024 13,30,600 27,525
56
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/3CrimeinIndia2024-VolumeIII1.pdf
57
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/3CrimeinIndia2023PartIII2.pdf
58
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/ciiyearwise2022/
1701608543CrimeinIndia2022Book3.pdf
59
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/CII-2021Volume3.pdf
60
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/CII-2020Volume3.pdf
CASES AGAINST FOREIGN NATIONALS REGISTERED UNDER
NDPS ACT BETWEEN 2020 -2024
Nationality 2024
56
2023
57
2022
58
2021
59
2020
60
Bangladesh 19 17 2 6 16
Nigeria 259 260 294 245 136
Nepal 129 51 52 82 33
Myanmar 58 9 37 9 5
Other African
Countries
50 58 72 81 33
Sri Lanka 4 3 7 4 3
Pakistan 0 2 0 0 0
Other Asian
countries
6 4 4 3 6
Other SAARC
countries
0 3 0 0 0
Russia 6 3 7 2 11
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 58
5. 2025 (upto
Nov.)
11,85,994 16,927
61
SEIZURES UNDER NDPS ACT OF HEROIN
Year Quantity (in Kilogram)
2020
62
1782.606
2021
63
2415.352
2022
64
4335.494
2023
65
4159.380
2024
66
2954.772
19. Given that in this case, sureties were produced, allegedly
verified and accordingly the respondent-accused was released, but
later it was found that sureties were in fact fake; the purpose of
producing sureties, i.e., people who shall be able to secure the
presence of the accused in the event that the same is required, is
itself rendered naught- the Court cannot ignore the grave
possibilities that may arise in cases where this issue is left
unaddressed. We may note that, in 2021 , a Bench comprising
Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian JJ, had, while dismissing
a special leave petition for the grant of bail
67, taken judicial notice
of the issue of false sureties in the following terms: –
61
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2223093®=48&lang=2
62
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/table-20B3-2020.pdf
63
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/table-20B3-2021.pdf
64
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1702034643TABL
E20B3.pdf
65
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/TABLE20B3.pdf
66
https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/files/TABLE20B31.pdf
67
SLP (Crl) No. 4116/2021
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 59
“The problem of impersonation of sureties 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 Sub-ordinate Courts
in India. But there is still no mechanism with the courts to
verify the genuineness of the surety. Therefore, we deem it
appropriate to issue notice to the Central Government and
to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Bangla Sahib Road, behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New
Delhi 110001 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 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.”
Consequent thereto, Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl) No. 1 of 2021 came
to be registered, however, that appears to have remained pending
without the needle having moved forward in any manner.
Factual Matrix : Non-existence of Sureties
20. Turning our attention back to the present case, once the issue
of fake sureties having been furnished came to light, we were of the
considered view that it is essential to go to the root of the matter,
not only here but also otherwise, for if the very persons responsible
for ensuring the accused’s presence before the concerned Court are
fictitious, the process of criminal justice grinds to a halt, for now
there is no accused against whom the trial can proceed. What
transpired further is captured as under:
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 60
20.1 The Union of India, in its affidavit dated 13
th November 2025
indicating compliance of our orders, submitted that:
a. The accused was not traceable;
b. The address of the surety, namely Sushil Balkrushna Jadhav,
was fake and residents of the area were not aware of any such
person associated with the address;
c. The purported employer of the surety submitted that no such
person had ever been employed at their office;
d. The bank account furnished by the surety and the corresponding
branch to which it belonged were incorrect. No account was with
the bank under the name of the surety;
e. The PAN card and Aadhaar card of the surety were found to be
forged;
f. Application was made to the concerned Trial Court on 12
th
November 2025 for forfeiture of surety bond and issuance of Non-
Bailable Warrant against the surety.
20.2 The report of the Special Judge (NDPS) dated 21
st November
2025, which was called vide order dated 18
th November 2025,
reveals that Sushil Balkrushna Jadhav, the surety for the
respondent-accused, was apparently produced before the Court and
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 61
identified by Ms. Nasima Danish Battiwala, Advocate He had stated
that he knew the respondent-accused for the past six years.
Further, it was submitted that the City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Mumbai, has a dedicated department for the verification of
sureties. The said department had placed the documents before the
deponent, and he had also personally interacted with the surety
before issuing formal acceptance. In other words, all statutory
requirements were met. The fact that the details were fake came to
light only later, and once the bail order had been stayed, NBWs were
issued against the accused as also notice was issued to the surety.
20.3 On 17
th December 2025, notice was issued by this Court to
Ms. Nasima Danish Battiwala, Advocate (Respondent No. 4). She
has filed two affidavits, the first on 13
th January 2026 and the
second on 20
th January 2026. In the first affidavit, she has made
submissions regarding the process of verification of sureties as was
being followed in the concerned Court. She has submitted that after
the concerned Registrar of the Court verifies the documents, the
same are placed before the concerned Judge, who would then
interview the surety and, only upon being satisfied, pass an order.
It is also submitted that in the last few years the Courts have
stopped insisting on police verification of the surety and the accused
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 62
regarding the addresses and the verification report for the solvency
of the surety. Insofar as her role in the present case is concerned,
all that she says is that Shri Sushil Balkrushna Jadhav, brought
the respondent(s)-accused to her, stating that he would stand
surety for the latter and the necessary papers were to be filed. She
had only this much to do with the case. The second affidavit was
limited to filing relevant documents that govern the verification of
sureties.
20.4 Considering the issue as also the very real possibility of
similar circumstances arising in other cases, we thought it fit to
examine the processes for verification of sureties as prevalent in
States other than Maharashtra, as well. Accordingly, the learned
standing counsel for the States and the High Courts were requested
to file the relevant information. Such information was supplied to
the Court. The same was perused and considered. A large number
of commonalities could be deduced from the procedures adopted
across the States. The following table that captures the procedure
in some States, which is over and above the common aspects across
the States:
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 63
SURETY VERIFICATION
S.NO. STATE / UT DETAILS
1. BOMBAY HIGH
COURT (ALL
JURISDICTIONS)
SURETY VERIFICATION APPLICATION
(Police Verification “P.V.”)
• Verified following documents
• P.V. Report dated +Ve by. Police Station -Ve
Partly +Ve about surety.
• P.V. Report dated by. Police Station -Ve +Ve
Partly +Ve about accused.
• R.C. No.
• Electricity Bill/Telephone Bill
• Aadhar No
• PAN Card No.
• Electoral Card No.
• Passport No. Valid till
• Bank Passbook/statement of Bank bearing
A/c. "No." showing balance of Rs. as on
• Income tax return
• Solvency certificate
• Affidavit of income
REMAND APPLICATION
• Full name
• Qualification
• Residence address
• Period for surety has been residing at the
above address
Occupation / business details:-
Address / Nature / Rent
• Employer details:
• Particulars of house property owned
• Income tax paid in 3 years
• Bank account and remaining balance
• Length of time surety has known accused
• Prior surety engagements
• Surety bond forfeited?
• Whether any application of surety rejected
earlier
• Surety involved in any litigation or accused
in any case.
2. RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT
Rule 11 of Order 35 (general provisions regarding
inquiries and trials in criminal courts) of the
2018 Rules provides:
"11. Surety to submit ID proof-
(a) The surety shall submit an affidavit while
affixing upon it a latest coloured photograph
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 64
of himself/herself and besides information
about his/her financial capacity. The
information on the following points must be
verified on oath:-
(i) How and since when he knows the person
for whom he is standing as surety.
(ii) Whether and in how many cases, he has
furnished surety.
(iii) His permanent and present residential
address.
(iv) Whether, the person for whom he is
furnishing surety in bail or somebody on his
behalf has paid him or agreed to pay any
gratification in any manner."
3. ORRISA HIGH
COURT / STATE
OF ORRISA
Form (M) 83 – A
• Occupation or business:-
• Name & address of the employer if the Surety
is in services:-
• Full Particulars of house property owned,
• Banking accounts, if any:- Amounts now
lying in each banking account:-
• Length of time for which the Surety has
known the Accused personally:-
• Whether the Surety is related to the accused;
if so how?
• Whether the Surety has stood has surety for
any other person in the preceding six
months.
• Whether, at any time, surety bond forfeited.
If so, give particulars:-
• Whether, at any Time, application for surety
ship which was rejected; if so, give the
particulars thereof:-
• Whether the surety is involved in any
litigation or accused in any case :-
• Any particulars in regard to the status of the
surety, or his income and assets which the
surety may desire to give:
Surety details in – (M) 83, (M) 83 A, (M) 84, (M)
85
• Name of surety
• Name of accused
• Case details assuring accused’s presence on
court’s direction
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 65
• Forfeit money in non-compliance of court’s
order.
4. STATE OF
KERALA / HIGH
COURT OF
KERALA
• Ensure authenticity and accountability of
sureties.
• He or she is not acting as a habitual or
professional surety and that the particulars
furnished are genuine may be incorporated
in the format.
• Verification of identity and residence through
official identification documents
• E-Courts platform may significantly enhance
compliance monitoring. Electronic
transmission of bail orders and conditions to
the jurisdictional police station and
investigating officer
• Challenges, cases involving foreign nationals,
particularly with respect to identity
verification, availability of local sureties and
ensuring continued presence within the
jurisdiction of the court.
• Safeguards including surrender of passport,
restriction on international travel without
permission of the court and mandatory
intimation to immigration or FRRO
authorities.
• In suitable cases and subject to judicial
discretion, verification or assurance from the
concerned Embassy or Consulate of the
accused’s country may also be considered as
a supplementary safeguard, where
conventional local sureties are difficult to
obtain.
• Courts may also consider requiring periodic
reporting before the jurisdictional police
station or investigating officer in such cases.
5. FOR STATE OF
BIHAR / HC OF
PATNA
PETITION UNDER SECTION 441 CR.
P.C./485 OF BNSS
• Stand as surety to the above named accused
to the extent of Rs.______
• Surety hereby submitting : as surety
document for his property/ FDR bearing No.
dt.
• Issued by ___________ of Rs. ___________ Only
• That the said property/ FDR is free from all
charges, mortgages and lieu etc
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 66
6. HIGH COURT OF
HIMACHAL
PRADESH
High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No. 39 of 2011, titled as Panne Lal
versus State, vide order dated 30.09.2011
had issued the following directions:
“i) Whenever an accused is produced before
the Court(s), there shall be a, photograph of
the accused, which shall be affixed in the
records Saja Slip and the photograph shall be
attested by the Magistrate at the time of
production of the accused.
ii) As far as sureties are concerned, in their
cases also (1) photos of the persons identified
should form part of the records. In the NDPS
cases, where foreign nationals are involved,
as cautioned by the Apex Court, the Court(s)
should be circumspect in granting bails and
even if bails are to be granted also, stringent
conditions should be imposed with a (2)
minimum of two solvent sureties and the
bonds of the sureties should be for
substantial amounts. Though it may not be
proper for this Court to give any indication as
to what should be the substantial amount, in
view of the changing economic conditions, we
are of the view that (3) each surety should be
having solvency to the tune of rupees fifty
lacs, where commercial quantity is involved,
and in all other cases, except the (4) small
quantity the solvency should be of a
minimum amount of rupees five lacs and in
small quantity, the bond shall be for a (5)
minimum amount of rupees one lac for each
surety. In order to ascertain solvency, the
trial Court(s) may look into the (6) revenue
papers with respect to title, ownership or any
other proof with regard to their solvency
(iii) Wherever (7) Unique Identity Proof Cards
(Aadhar Cards) have been issued, the
identification by the said UIPC shall be-
insisted by the Courts and police
officers/officials. The learned trial Court
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 67
shall insist for identification of the accused
whenever they are directed to be present in
Court(s)”
Further the Courts are also required to
adhere to the directions given by the
Supreme Court in Thana Singh versus
Central Bureau of Narcotics (Cr. Appeal No.
1640 of 2010) decided on 23.01 2013 ((2013)
2 SCC 590) which can also be accessed on
the website of the H.P. Judicial Academy, i.e.
www.hpsja.nic.in,
It has been observed by the High Court time
and again that the directions issued in Panne
Lal's case (supra) are not being complied
with. Against the aforesaid background, I
have, therefore, been directed to impress
upon all the judicial officers to comply with
the provisions of Sections 437 A and 441 A of
the Code as well as the above directions in
Panne Lal's case (supra) and also Thana
Singh versus Central Bureau of Narcotics
(supra) without fail and the particulars of
accused and surety taken under Section 437
A Cr. P.C be entered in the footnote of Form-
B of the final judgment. Non-compliance of
these directions shall be strictly viewed and
may entail disciplinary action against the
erring judicial officer(s) which may adversely
affect his/her judicial career.
7. U.T. OF
ANDAMAN AND
NICOBAR
ISLANDS
Affidavit
affirm as follows:-
1. That I own and posses’ movable and
immovable properties worth Rs________
situated at ________
2. That I am government servant, and I am
drawing a Gross salary of Rs _________
per month.
3. That there is no criminal case is pending
against me in any court of Law.
This is true to my knowledge and belief.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 68
8. NATIONAL
CAPITAL
TERRITORY
OF DELHI/
HIGH COURT OF
DELHI
Bail Bond/ Affidavit
• Affirmed and declared as under__
• Ration card number
• Election card number
• Position and place of employment
• T/C Number
• Income
• Value of household articles
• Immovable property number, bearing
number with measurements, location of
property and evaluation of property
• Undertaking for appearance before the court
• F.D.R. Number, issued by and evaluation
• Vehicle number
• R/c number with evaluation of vehicle
9. AFFIDAVIT ON
BEHALF OF UOI
Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology
• That National Informatics Centre (NIC) has
provided the facility to (only) enter surety
details as part of the Case Information
System (CIS) which is implemented in
District and Taluka courts, across the
country. It is stated that CIS has been
developed under the guidance and directions
of eCommittee, Supreme Court of India.
• That it is pertinent to mention that CIS is
being managed by Ministry of Law and
Justice (Department of Justice) and has been
implemented by NIC.
• That, it is hence submitted that Ministry of
Law and Justice (Department of Justice)
being the appropriate Ministry, may be
impleaded for a resolution of the issue at
hand, since NIC is only the implementing
agency and Department of Justice under the
aegis of Ministry of Law and Justice is the
appropriate authority for taking a policy
decision concerning any addition of features
in the Case Information System.
• That, Surety application to be checked by
Assistant Registrar of Sessions Department.
• Sessions Registrar/Additional Registrar
endorsement “Submitted to the Hon’ble
Court for necessary Orders and directions”.
• The Sheristedars to put up the said
applications received from Sessions
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 69
21. Well, be that as it may. Let us begin at the beginning. How
the concept of sureties has been considered, judicially or otherwise,
is something which we must consider.
In Moti Ram v. State of M.P.
68 this Court, speaking through
V.R. Krishna Iyer J., discussed sureties and particularly
professional sureties in the following terms:
“16. Coming to studies made in India by
knowledgeable Committees we find the same
connotation of bail as including release on one's own
bond being treated as implicit in the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The Gujarat Committee [
Report of the Legal Aid Committee appointed by the
Government of Gujarat, 1971 and headed by then
Chief Justice of the State, Mr Justice P.N. Bhagwati,
p. 185] from which we quote extensively, dealt with
this matter in depth:
“The bail system, as we see it administered in the
criminal courts today, is extremely unsatisfactory
and needs drastic change. In the first place it is
virtually impossible to translate risk of non-
appearance by the accused into precise monetary
terms and even its basic premise that risk of
68
(1978) 4 SCC 47
Department before the Presiding Officer for
Orders.
• That, Sheristedar to make noting in the
roznama about the order of the Presiding
Officer of acceptance or rejection of surety
and send back the Record & Proceeding to
the Sessions Department for preparing
Bonds and Letters.
• That, Sheristedars to place before Presiding
Officer P.R.Bond; Surety Bond, Justification
form and endorsement on Ration Card for
signature, thereafter to send back the Record
and Proceeding to the Sessions Department.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 70
financial loss is necessary to prevent the accused
from fleeing is of doubtful validity. There are
several considerations which deter an accused
from running away from justice and risk of
financial loss is only one of them and that too not
a major one. The experience of enlightened Bail
Projects in the United States such as Manhattan
Bail Project and D.C. Bail Project shows that even
without monetary bail it has been possible to
secure the presence of the accused at the trial in
quite a large number of cases. Moreover, the bail
system causes discrimination against the
poor since the poor would not be able to furnish
bail on account of their poverty while the
wealthier persons otherwise similarly situate
would be able to secure their freedom because
they can afford to furnish bail. This
discrimination arises even if the amount of the
bail fixed by the Magistrate is not high, for a large
majority of those who are brought before the
Courts in criminal cases are so poor that they
would find it difficult to furnish bail even in a small
amount.” (emphasis added)
17. The vice of the system is brought out in the Report:
“The evil of the bail system is that either the poor
accused has to fall back on touts and professional
sureties for providing bail or suffer pre-trial
detention. Both these consequences are fraught
with great hardship to the poor. In one case the
poor accused is fleeced of his moneys by touts
and professional sureties and sometimes has
even to incur debts to make payment to them for
securing his release; in the other he is deprived of
his liberty without trial and conviction and this
leads to grave consequences, namely: (1) though
presumed innocent he is subjected to the
psychological and physical deprivations of jail life;
(2) he loses his job, if he has one, and is deprived
of an opportunity to work to support himself and
his family with the result that burden of his
detention falls heavily on the innocent members
of the family, (3) he is prevented from contributing
to the preparation of his defence; and (4) the
public exchequer has to bear the cost of
maintaining him in the jail. [ Report of the Legal
Aid Committee appointed by the Government of
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 71
Gujarat, 1971 and headed by then Chief Justice
of the State, Mr Justice P.N. Bhagwati, p. 185] ”
…
19. A latter Committee with Judges, lawyers, members
of Parliament and other legal experts, came to the
same conclusion and proceeded on the assumption
that release on bail included release on the accused's
own bond:
“. . . We think that a liberal policy of conditional
release without monetary sureties or financial
security and release on one's own recognizance
with punishment provided for violation will go a
long way to reform the bail system and help the
weaker and poorer sections of the community to
get equal justice under law. Conditional release
may take the form of entrusting the accused to
the care of his relatives or releasing him on
supervision. The court or the authority granting
bail may have to use the discretion judiciously.
When the accused is too poor to find sureties,
there will be no point in insisting on his
furnishing bail with sureties, as it will only
compel him to be in custody with the consequent
handicaps in making his defence. [ Report of the
Expert Committee on Legal Aid —Processual
Justice to the People, May 1973] ””
21.1 Three decades ago, the Law Commission of India, in its 154
th
Law Commission Report
69, under the chairmanship of K.
Jayachandra Reddy, J. noted the problem of fake sureties as
follows:
“SURETIES
19.1 The bail procedure is becoming a shame in courts
with the accused in criminal cases absconding after
arranging fake sureties on fake identities and address.
69
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022080878-
1.pdf
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 72
Accordingly the procedure of securing release on the
basis of forged documents has become easy.
19.2 In Delhi the practice seems to be that when the
court allows accused's release on bail after a local
person is willing to stand surety, the guarantor has to
produce documents to the Court to prove his domicile
and solvency. This is done by producing a ration card
or a passport. In addition, a power-of-attorney attested
by a Notary Public, a motor vehicle registration
document, a bank fixed deposit receipt or a certificate
from the Income Tax Department is required to be
submitted to authenticate the guarantor's solvency.
19.3 There are touts operating in the Court permises,
who help out, on a price tag, those accused who
scheme to obtain bail with the idea of absconding.
These touts give surety on the basis of fake identity.
They operate with numerous fake ration cards which
substantiate their domicile in Delhi each in a different
name and address. A back dated stamp paper is
procured on which details regarding the power -of-
attorney of the guarantor's property in Delhi are stated
and is attested by a Notary Public. They also have in
their possession fake letterheads of private
organisations, fake identity cards of themselves as
government servants and fake motor vehicle
registration papers. The touts have to be paid 20% to
30% of the surety amount before the presentation of
the surety.
19.4 Clause 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Bill seeks to incorporate a new section,
S. 441A to deal with the abuse of professional and fake
sureties which reads as under:
Every person standing surety to an accused person for
his release on bail,
shall make a declaration before the court as to the
number of persons to whom he has stood surety
including the accused, giving therein all the relevant
particulars.
19.5 We are of the view that section 441A be
incorporated in the Code to eliminate the pernicious
evil of professional and fake sureties in the eliminate
the pernicious evil of professional and fake sureties in
the bail process. It will eliminate collusion between
professional sureties, administrators of criminal
justice system and criminals.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 73
20.1 S. 446 of the Code prescribes the procedure for
forfeiture of bonds either for appearance or production
of property. Before forfeiting the surety bond, the court
should give notice to surety to show cause as to why
the surety bond be not forfeited. Once a hearing is
given to the surety and the court is satisfied that the
bond is forfeited, it shall record the grounds of such
proof and call upon the surety to pay the penalty.
20.2 Sub-section 3 of section 446 empowers the court,
at its discretion, to remit any portion of the penalty
and enforce payment in part only. It has been held by
various decisions of the High Courts that a case for the
exercise of discretion under this sub-section will arise
in cases where the accused has been subsequently
arrested or the amount forfeited is excessive and the
surety is unable to pay. It is also not irrelevant to
consider whether the surety did not act irresponsibly
and there was no connivance or negligence on the part
of the surety.
20.3 Clause 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Bill seeks to amend sub-section (3) to
provide that the court shall record reasons before
reducing the penalty.
20.4 The proposed amendment is as follows:
In section 446 of the principal Act, for the words "at its
discretion", the words "after recording its reasons for
doing so" shall be substituted.
20.5 We are of the view that in keeping with the tune
of amendments to section 436, 437. 438 and the
insertion of sections 436A and 441A, the amendment
of sub-section (3) of section 446 on the lines set out
above to require rigorous exercise of discretion by the
Courts by recording reasons prior to the reduction of
penalty and enforcement in part, is proper and
warranted.”
The 268
th Law Commission Report also dealt with the aspect of
sureties.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 74
Indian Statutory Position and Comparative International
Perspective
21.2 The statutory provisions dealing with bail, sureties etc., are
as follows:
Chapter XXXIII CrPC Chapter XXXIV BNSS
436. In what cases bail to be taken.
436A. Maximum period for which an
undertrial prisoner can be detained.
437. When bail may be taken in case
of non-bailable offence.
437A. Bail to require accused to
appear before next appellate Court.
438. Direction for grant of bail to
person apprehending arrest.
439. Special powers of High Court or
Court of Session regarding bail.
440. Amount of bond and reduction
thereof.
441. Bond of accused and sureties.
441A. Declaration by sureties.
442. Discharge from custody.
443. Power to order sufficient bail
when that first taken is insufficient.
444. Discharge of sureties.
445. Deposit instead of
recognizance.
446. Procedure when bond has been
forfeited.
446A. Cancellation of bond and bail
bond.
447. Procedure in case of insolvency
of death of surety or when a bond is
forfeited.
448. Bond required from minor.
449. Appeal from orders under
section 446.
450. Power to direct levy of amount
due on certain recognizances
479. Bail and bond
480. In what cases bail to be
taken.
481. Maximum period for which an
undertrial prisoner can be
detained.
482. When bail may be taken in
case of non-bailable offence.
483. Bail to require accused to
appear before next appellate Court.
484. Direction for grant of bail to
person apprehending arrest.
485. Special powers of High Court
or Court of Session regarding bail.
486. Amount of bond and
reduction thereof.
487. Bond of accused and sureties.
488. Declaration by sureties.
489. Discharge from custody.
490. Power to order sufficient bail
when that first taken is
insufficient.
491. Discharge of sureties.
492. Deposit instead of
recognizance.
493. Procedure when bond has
been forfeited.
494. Cancellation of bond and bail
bond.
495. Procedure in case of
insolvency of death of surety or
when a bond is forfeited.
496. Bond required from minor.
497. Appeal from orders under
section 446.
498. Power to direct levy of amount
due on certain recognizances.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 75
21.3 Having understood the system in India briefly, we may also
draw from a comparative international perspective.
21.3.1 In the United States for example, there are four systems: (i)
personal recognition and unsecured bond, where pre-trial release
does not involve furnishing of any financial bond
70; (ii) conditional
release, on agreement to participate in supervision programme
which may include electronic monitoring or reporting to law
enforcement agents as per a decided schedule
71; (iii) deposit bond
in Court, where 10% of the total bail amount is deposited before the
Court and the same is refunded after the disposition of the case
72;
and (iv) Bondsman system, in this, a professional bail bondsman
furnishes the bail amount before the Court and undertakes to
ensure the accused’s presence whenever he is required in Court in
exchange of a fee that is charged to the accused. In order to
reduce/rule out fake sureties, the Federal Acquisition Regulations
mandate that surety must pledge assets unencumbered in nature,
that equals or surpasses the bond’s sum. Sureties are also required
70
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-26-release-and-
detention-pending-judicial-proceedings-18-usc-3141-et
71
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-26-release-and-
detention-pending-judicial-proceedings-18-usc-3141-et
72
https://bjs.ojp.gov/taxonomy/term/bail
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 76
to submit real estate tax assessments and certified copies of
municipal or county tax/receipts as applicable
73.
21.3.2 In Canada, the Court releasing an accused on bail on the
basis of a surety undertakes surety verification hearings where the
surety is questioned on their relationship with the accused,
financial and employment status etc.
74
21.3.3 In the Republic of Singapore, the requirements for a
particular person to be a surety, or, in their words, bailor, are clearly
laid out as follows
75:
• “A Singapore citizen or permanent resident.
• 21 years and above.
• Not a declared bankrupt.
• Not facing criminal charges.
• Not an active bailer in other court matters.
• Physically, mentally, and financially fit to
accept bailor duties.
• Prepared to accept bailor duties until the
accused's case is over.
• Able to pledge security in cash or in personal
properties for the bail amount ordered by
the court until the accused's case
concludes.”
73
https://delcode.delaware.gov/title18/title18.pdf
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ins/division-1/part-2/chapter-7/article-
1/section-1802/, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-2/title-
10/chapter-1/article-1/section-1276/
74
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf
75
Bailor eligibility and duties
https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/criminal/bail#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20a%20bailor%20sh
ould,who%20can%20be%20a%20bailor.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 77
It is also provided that even if a person fulfils all the above criteria,
the courts retain discretion on appointing bailors. The Criminal
Procedure Code 2010
76 provides specifically the duties of a surety
as follows:
“Duties of surety
104. A surety must —
(a) ensure that the released person surrenders to
custody, or makes himself or herself available for
investigations or attends court on the day and at
the time and place appointed for him or her to do
so;
(b) keep in daily communication with the released
person and lodge a police report within 24 hours
of losing contact with him or her; and
(c) ensure that the released person is within
Singapore unless the released person has been
permitted by the police officer mentioned in
section 92 or 93 (as the case may be) or the court
to leave Singapore.”
21.3.4 In Australia, the law regarding bail is state-specific. For
instance, in the State of Queensland the relevant statute is the Bail
Act, 1980. Part 3 thereof, deals with ‘Undertakings and Sureties’.
Section 20 deals in some detail about what an undertaking is, who
is to furnish it, and how. Section 21 concerns sureties and lays
down criteria to be met by a person, the affidavit to be furnished,
the requirement of a judge’s satisfaction regarding the surety and
the affidavit so furnished, etc. The statute under Section 24 imposes
a duty on the surety to produce the defendant (accused/convict as
76
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CPC2010
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 78
defined under Section 6 thereof) before the concerned court if at any
time he apprehends him at a time prior to the stipulated surrender,
and then seek discharge of his duties. The section is as follows:
“24 Apprehension of defendant by surety
(1) Where a defendant has been released on bail
to appear before a court, a surety for the bail may,
at any time before the defendant is required to
appear and surrender into custody in accordance
with this Act, apprehend the defendant and bring
the defendant before the court before which the
defendant is required to appear or a justice.
(1A) A police officer shall, if required by the surety
to do so, assist the surety in the apprehension.
(2) The court or justice may, upon the appearance
of the defendant before the court or justice, order
that the liability of the surety be discharged and
may call upon the defendant to furnish another
surety in the same amount and, if the defendant
fails to do so, may commit the defendant to
prison.
(3) A defendant committed to prison following the
defendant’s appearance pursuant to
subsection (2) may apply to the court before
which the defendant was required to appear or
any other court to be granted bail again and the
court—
(a) may refuse the application; or
(b) may grant the application and make such
order with respect to the number of sureties (if
any) and the amount and conditions of bail as it
thinks proper in the circumstances.”
Having appreciated the concept of sureties and some basic facts
about how the institutional sureties are used in other countries,
we now move to the considerations put forth by the parties in this
regard.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 79
Inputs by the Amicus Curiae, Agencies and the Appellant
21.4 One of the aspects that the learned amicus curiae has dealt
with in extenso, is the suggestions made by the DRI regarding
sureties. We have perused the same. Written submissions filed by
the Union of India on 15
th December 2025 reveal that they are
substantially similar to the recommendations of the DRI noted
above.
21.5 We find that at least two High Courts, i.e. the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the High Court of Delhi,
have dealt with the question of fake/false sureties. Let us also take
note of those orders:
21.5.1 A learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Sharanjit Singh @ Suraj v. State of Punjab
77 issued
certain directions to the State in connection with the use of the
Aadhaar Card:
“15. In view thereof, this Court considers to issue
the following directions:
(i)The appropriate Authorities i.e. the Secretaries
of e-Governance Department of State of Punjab,
State of Haryana as well as Union Territory,
Chandigarh shall make appropriate application
under Rule 4 of the Aadhaar Authentication for
Good Governance (Social Welfare, Innovation,
Knowledge) Rules, 2020 to the Secretary Ministry
77
CRM-M 49429 of 2023
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 80
of Electronics and IT in the prescribed form
requesting for Aadhaar Authentication Services in
all the Court premises situated in their respective
States/U.T. within 30 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
(ii) The said application once received by the
Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and IT, shall be
considered favourably within a further period of
30 days. The necessary equipment to be provided
to the Courts in terms of the applicable scheme
with applicable contribution by the State and the
Central Government will be provided within a
further period of 30 days. Entire system shall be
made operational including implementation of
software and hardware within a period of 4
months from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.
(iii)That the infrastructure for bio -metric
verification of the Aadhaar Card at the Court
premises shall be provided by the NIC, with the
technical assistance of UIDAI.
ONCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE:
(iv) The Courts while accepting surety shall insist
for complete details and identity document of
surety including Aadhaar Card. Consent of the
surety shall be obtained for verification of
Aadhaar Card.
(v)The Magistrate concerned i.e. the Magistrate
having jurisdiction over the local areas within the
limits of the concerned station shall verify the
Aadhaar Card of the accused in the case of
personal bond and the Aadhaar Cards of the
sureties as well in the case of surety bonds.
(vi) For first time accused facing prosecution qua
offences punishable with imprisonment of less
than 7 years under the Indian Penal Code, the
Courts shall comply with guidelines issued by
Supreme Court in Hussainara Khotoon’s case
ibid and shall not insist on sureties if parameters
laid down in Para 4 of the said judgment are
fulfilled on inquiry/verification of Aadhaar
number of the accused.
(vii) The Periphery Surety Module which was
planned with the provision of not only integration
of Aadhaar which authenticates and identifies
individual Aadhaar number holder but also
immoveable property details which are tendered
as surety by the party in the case, shall be fully
implemented and utilized optimally. Whenever a
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 81
person is to stand as surety the same shall be
cross-checked with the database to satisfy w.r.t.
the provisions of Section 441A of 1973 Code.
(viii) The Principal District Judge and the Chief
Judicial Magistrates shall inspect the register of
Sureties periodically, preferably after every three
months.
(ix) Registrar General, Punjab & Haryana High
Court is directed to issue necessary circulars to
all the Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana
and U.T., Chandigarh. Necessary Rules be also
framed in this respect, in the meantime, if so
required.”
21.5.2 The High Court of Delhi in Sunil Tyagi v. State (NCT of
Delhi)
78, while dealing with the issue of proclaimed offenders,
issued certain directions, some of which would apply to sureties
also. We have perused the same and taken them into
consideration.
21.6 We have also perused the affidavit on behalf of UIDAI
originally filed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl) No.1 of 2021. The
stand of UIDAI opposes, in a sense, the use of Aadha ar
authentication. The same is permitted only for three purposes i.e.,
(i) preventing leakage of public funds; (ii) promoting ease of living
for residents; and (iii) enabling better access to (a) digital platforms
for good governance; (b) social welfare benefits; and (c) innovation
and spread of knowledge. If the Aadhaar authentication process is
78
(2021) 4 HCC (Del) 723
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 82
to be applied for the purpose of surety verification, an application
would be required to be made to MeitY, Government of India as per
the Aadhaar Authentication for good governance (Social Welfare,
Innovation, Knowledge) Rules 2020 , which would then be
considered independently.
21.7 In addition to what we have discussed in the foregoing
paragraphs, the amicus curiae has made a number of
recommendations/suggestions. They are, inter alia, as follows:
21.7.1 With reference to the 268
th Report of the Law Commission
of India, a suggestion has been made regarding the use of electronic
tagging. This, it is submitted, if done, must balance the right to
privacy under KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India
79 and Frank
Vitus (supra);
21.7.2 The use of Aadhaar biometric data through a centralised
database in certain cases where it is specifically requested in the
legitimate interest of the State;
21.7.3 On the administrative side, it is suggested that when the
verification of the sureties has been undertaken on the basis of
police verification and revenue verification reports but later found
79
(2019) 1 SCC 1
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 83
to be false, mandatory departmental inquiries should be instituted
against the erring officials. The fixed deposit or bank account of the
surety should be placed under lien after linkage with the bail bond;
21.7.4 The introduction of real-time biometric verification, similar
to what has been adopted by telecom service providers for the
issuance of SIM cards. Such verification should also include
authentication of immovable property documents and other
financial instruments relied on by the surety. This is possible
through the integration of various portals such as UIDAI, M-
Parivahan, Registry Records etc;
21.7.5 The introduction of ‘USIN’-Unique Surety Identification
Number that would enable courts across jurisdictions to, through a
centralised database, detect multiple uses of the same sureties,
thereby reducing the possibility of erroneous orders of bail. When
such instances are found, the person should be identified, traced
and proceeded against in accordance with law within a short span
of time. The time frame suggested is two days;
21.7.6 To revise surety bond formats to incorporate enhanced
disclosures such as details of employer, certificate of identity etc.,
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 84
biometric linkage and the history of the person having stood as
surety on earlier occasions;
21.7.7 When an accused person, particularly a foreign national,
is identified as a flight risk, all Airports and border authorities
should be notified along with name and photograph to account for
the possibility of them escaping. When such individuals are
released on bail, the embassy of their country of origin should be
notified for all necessary action. If such an accused seeks
permission to travel abroad, the same can be allowed only on the
basis of strict/stringent conditions; and
21.7.8 Judicial officers, police and revenue officials need to be
periodically trained regarding surety-based bail- the difficulties it
poses for indigent undertrials etc.
21.8 The appellant, Union of India, has also, for its part, made some
suggestions to this Court. They are as follows:
“Deposit of Passport & Travel Restrictions
1. The accused’s passport should be
mandatorily deposited either with the
investigating agency or with the concerned Court
to prevent any unauthorized travel.
2. It is submitted that restrictions should be
imposed on travel beyond local jurisdiction, and
no outside travel should be allowed without
permission of the Trial Court.
3. The accused should not be granted
permission by the Court to exit the country after
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 85
being granted bail until the completion of trial,
and in case of conviction until the sentence is
completed, as there is a high potential risk that
such foreign national would not return to India to
face the trial in Courts.
Bail security, Sureties and financial safeguards
4. The accused should be released from jail
only after due furnishing and verification of at
least two solvent Sureties, in addition to Cash
Bail and personal bond. This Hon’ble Court in
Hani Nishad v. State of U.P. reported as 2018
SCC OnLine SC 3946 and in Girish Gandhi v.
State of U.P. reported as (2024) 10 SCC 674
has held that ‘there shall be two sureties who
shall execute the bond of equal amount’.
5. The amount of Cash bail/ personal bond,
when prescribed, should be commensurate with
the severity of crime; and it may be prescribed as
a percentage of seizure value of narcotics in the
case. A person involved in trafficking 5 kg of
Cocaine or Heroin should not have personal bond
same as for person involved in trafficking of 100
grams Cocaine or 250’grams of Heroin. Thus,
furnishing personal release bond of high value
and producing sureties of the similar
commensurate amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court will ensure that such offences are not
repeated and only genuine Sureties give
guarantee for the accused.
6. It is submitted that the sureties furnished
by the accused should be genuine, non -
professional, and their credentials, including
residential addresses should be verified by the
jurisdictional Police for authenticity, before
release of the accused on bail. Verification of: (i)
Aadhar Card and/or PAN Card of the Sureties
through respective Government
authorities/portals; (ii) Claim of employment from
the employing entity/firm/company; (iii) Claimed
business activities, if any, and (iv) Existence of
bank account mentioned by the Sureties, from
the concerned banks, should invariably be
carried out before the release of the accused on
bail. That for this purpose the investigating
agency may coordinate with the jurisdictional
Police Station for verification of the genuineness
of documents and physical existence of the
Sureties.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 86
7. A copy of the verification reports of the said
credentials and addresses declared by the
accused and by the Sureties/ Guarantors should
be placed before the Trial Court before release on
bail, and a copy should also be kept in the case
files of the investigating agency and Police.
8. Immediate action should be initiated against
the Sureties, including forfeiture of their
properties, in case any bail condition is violated
by the accused.
Address, Contact details verification and
Monitoring
9. The residential address provided by the
accused should be verified by the jurisdictional
Police and reported to the Trial Court, before the
accused is released on bail. This would prevent
furnishing of incomplete or wrong/fake address
and would make tracing of the accused easy later.
That, any changes in the address should be
immediately notified by the accused to the Court,
jurisdictional Police authorities and the
investigating agency.
10. The accused should furnish complete and
verifiable contact details, including a valid mobile
number, to the investigating agency and shall
promptly report any change therein. The
registered mobile number should remain active
and reachable at all times to ensure that the
investigating agency can establish contact with
the accused whenever required.
11. The accused should be required to mark
weekly physical attendance at the jurisdictional
police station and be present on each date in Trial
Court, and shall report to the investigating
agency, as and when called for or required.
12. In all such cases booked by any agency, a
copy of bail order should be invariably be
forwarded to the jurisdictional Police Station to
monitor the conduct and movements of the
accused.
Foreign nationals-registration, monitoring and
safeguards
13. That in case of foreign nationals it is
submitted that prior to their release on bail, the
accused should register themselves with the
Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO),
and submit a report to the Trial Court and the
investigating agency.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 87
14. In case the accused is a foreign national, he
shall file affidavit before the Trial Court before his
release on bail from jail, stating the source of their
funds and source of their income in this country,
giving the details of legal channels including bank
accounts through which they would be operating
their finances for bearing their living expenses.
15. That look Out Circulars may be issued
immediately by the investigating agency against
the foreign nationals arrested under NDPS Act,
and it may be continued till completion of trial,
including during bail, to ensure his continued
presence.
16.An undertaking should be taken from the
Embassy of the country concerned before grant of
bail that the national belongs to their country, as
sometimes such accused carry forged passports
and at the time of further proceedings and
deportation, the Embassy concerned refuses to
recognize the deportee as their national.
17. A certificate from concerned embassy/
consulate may also be obtained, assuring that the
accused shall not leave the country, shall attend
court hearings and shall abstain from committing
any further offences. Bail should be denied if such
a certificate is not granted by the concerned
embassy/ consulate.
18. The concerned Embassies and Consulates
should be promptly informed about the accused,
their case details and the bail conditions, and
they should be requested to provide the details
regarding the accused and his/her whereabouts,
including whenever the accused approaches the
embassy/consulate for any consular services.
19. In appropriate cases, Courts may consider
electronic surveillance methods such as GPS
tagging of the foreign national accused to ensure
continued presence within jurisdiction.
20. Foreign nationals involved in repeat offences
of narcotics-related cases should be blacklisted
and subsequently deported out of the country
after facing trial and if acquitted by the Court or
after completion of sentence, as the case may be,
under the provisions of relevant laws.
21. Biometric details, including iris recognition
of foreign nationals, should be captured by the
FRRO, and a secure access be provided to Law
Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). Integrating the
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 88
Bureau of Immigration/FRRO database with the
NCRB criminal database would enable
identification of passengers with criminal
histories, including those exiting or re-entering or
exiting by using a different or false identity.
Furthermore, Bureau of Immigrat ion/FRRO
database should also be integrated with the
National Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (NAFIS).
22. A centralized database containing details of
all foreign nationals arrested under NDPS Act by
all concerned enforcement agencies may be
created and made accessible to all agencies.
Further, a digital dashboard for monitoring cases
pertaining to foreign nationals can be created
indicating case status, bail and trial status etc.
for greater coordination amongst all agencies.
Procedural reforms, Expeditious trial and Legal
Expounding
23. Investigating agencies should expedite filing
of Special Leave Petitions and its listing on High
Priority for an early hearing when bail orders are
being challenged.
24. That all cases involving foreign nationals
may be referred to fast Track Courts to ensure
expeditious trial and disposal, so that they should
not get an opportunity for seeking bail on the
ground of long incarceration.
25. The term ‘long incarceration’ may be defined
and the same should be read in terms of section
479 of BNSS and section 436A of CrPC, as
presently absence of such timeline, various
courts are construing it differently and allowing
bail citing long incarceration with varied timelines
as criteria for granting bail to the accused.
26. That compliance of Section 129 of BNSS
may be made mandatory and a specific provision
may be incorporated to enable the execution of a
‘Bond for Good Behavior’ in respect of repeated
offenders under NDPS act. This would facilitate
effective supervision and control over foreign
nationals involved in the repeated violation.
27. That this Hon ‘ble Court in Tofan Singh v.
State of T.N. reported as (2021) 4 SCC 1 held
that for the purposes of confessional statements,
the officers under the NDPS Act
(inquiry/investigation) must be treated as “police
officers” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 89
Therefore, confessions made to such officers
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are
inadmissible as evidence because they would
violate Article 20(3) and the protections under the
Evidence Act. This judgement is being invariably
relied upon by the High Courts for granting bail
to the accused in cases wherein the allegations
are on the basis of statements of co-accused, even
if duly corroborated with other evidence, for
example the instant case. While Tofan Singh
judgement is a milestone in protecting against
wrongful conviction, a nuanced application is
necessary. Repeat offenders, having
demonstrated disregard for the law, should not be
allowed to exploit procedural protections to
perpetuate organized or habitual crime. Further,
it is seen that repeat offenders/ masterminds are
not directly involved with possession and carriage
of narcotics; thus statements once corroborated
with independent evidence should not be
discarded, especially at the bail stage.
Thus it may be expounded and elucidated that
statements recorded under Section 67 may not be
admissible during trial, they may nevertheless be
considered/ admissible while adjudicating a bail
application in NDPS cases.
28. That the above submissions and
suggestions are submitted keeping in mind the
sophisticated modus operandi adopted by the
masterminds of narcotic and trafficking
syndicates. Furthermore, reliance is being placed
on the decision of this Hon’ble Court in Union of
India v. Vigin K. Varghese reported as 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2440 and also on Supreme
Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing
Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India
reported as (1994) 6 SCC 731.”
22. Apart from the above, after inputs from NALSA, Mr. SV Raju,
learned ASG appearing for the Union of India, and Mr. Siddharth
Luthra, learned amicus curiae, together, made the following joint
suggestions to the Court:
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 90
“
1.1 Based on the suggestions of DRI and the updated
comments the following guidelines are proposed. It is made
clear that these guidelines are only applicable for the grant
of bail by the trial court/appellate court to foreign nationals
and non-citizens who are being prosecuted for offences
under NDPS in relation to commercial quantity.
1.2 Directions to all Courts that while granting
bail/suspension of sentence, in cases under NDPS
involving commercial quantity to foreign nationals, to
impose a condition for the accused’s passport to be
deposited with Court if not seized by the investigating
agency or already lying deposited with the Court, or any
other Court or agency.
1.3 Directions to all Courts granting bail/suspension of
sentence, that in cases under NDPS involving commercial
quantity to foreign nationals, a condition for grant of bail
be imposed that Accused should not be allowed to travel
outside India/ jurisdiction of the Court, without
permission of the Court granting bail or the Trial Court.
1.4 Directions to all Courts that while granting
bail/suspension of sentence, in cases under NDPS
involving commercial quantity to accused foreign nationals
to register themselves with the FRRO within one week of
release and submit a report to the Trial Court and
Investigating Agency.
1.5 Directions to FRRO, Ministry of Home Affairs, to
create a mechanism (portal) for accused foreign nationals
to register themselves with the FRRO within one week of
release on bail/suspension of sentence, in cases under
NDPS involving commercial quantity to and submit a
report to the Court granting bail and/or Investigating
Agency.
1.6 Directions be issued to investigating agencies, that
upon grant of bail/suspension of sentence in cases under
NDPS involving commercial quantity to accused foreign
nationals, the investigating agency is directed to request
the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue Look Out Notice
against such persons, within 2 working days of the order
being passed.
1.7 Directions to all Courts that while granting
bail/suspension of sentence, in cases under NDPS
involving commercial quantity to accused foreign national
to provide two sureties for grant of bail. (Note-Alternatively,
this Court may consider whether it should be left to the
discretion of the Court to ask for one or two sureties while
granting bail.
1.8 DRI has suggested that amount of Cash/ Personal
Bond should be commensurate with the severity of crime
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 91
or percentage of seizure value of narcotics in the case. This
suggestion seeks to tie the Cash/ Personal Bond to the
“severity of crime or percentage of seizure value of
narcotics.”.
AMICUS NOTE – It would be appropriate and in
consonance with precedents of this Court, to issue
“Direction to Courts granting bail/suspension of sentence
to foreign nationals accused in cases under NDPS involving
commercial quantity may impose appropriate surety
amount to seek to ensure that accused does not flee from
justice upon release.”
1.9 Directions be issued to Courts to ensure that the
declared place of residence of the Foreign National Accused
in bail bond, in cases under NDPS involving commercial
quantity in India, is verified not later than 3 working days
of furnishing bail bond and prior to their release.
1.10 Direction be issued to Courts granting
bail/suspension of sentence to foreign national accused in
a NDPS Case involving commercial quantity, for ensuring
verification of the sureties by the investigating agency ,
within 3 working days of furnishing bail bond and prior to
their release. This verification report be placed by the
investigating agency no later than 3 days before the Court
where bail bond is furnished.
1.11 Directions be issued to Courts granting
bail/suspension of sentence to Foreign National Accused
in cases under NDPS involving commercial quantity, to
furnish, within a period of 7 days from release on bail, a
valid Indian mobile number which is functional/operative
in India, (and to keep it switched on permanently), to the
investigating agency and to further report any change
therein, within 72 hours of change, to the Court accepting
bail/surety bonds.
1.12 Directions be issued to Courts to impose a condition
of grant of bail, on foreign national Accused granted
bail/suspension of sentence in cases under NDPS involving
commercial quantity, to mark their presence weekly in the
jurisdictional police station of their place of residence, or
report to the investigating officer, (if within a 30 km
distance from residence of accused) upon release on bail.
1.13 Directions be issued to Courts granting bail to
Foreign national Accused in cases under NDPS involving
commercial quantity, a condition be imposed that accused
shall file an affidavit before the Trial Court within one week
of his release on bail, stating source of funds and source of
income in this country if any, and giving details of their
bank accounts, if any, through which he/she would be
operating their finances.
1.14 Directions be issued by the Court granting bail to
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 92
investigating agencies concerned, to inform the
Embassies/Consulates of the country of which foreign
national accused is a citizen, in cases under NDPS
involving commercial quantity of grant of bail.
1.15 Directions be issued to Courts granting bail, to
request the concerned embassy/ consulate of country of
which accused is a citizen, to provide a certificate, within
7 days of release, assuring that foreign national accused in
cases under NDPS involving commercial quantity granted
bail shall not leave the country, shall attend court hearings
and shall abstain from committing any further offences.
The embassy/ consulate of country of which accused is a
citizen, may also be requested by the Court granting bail,
to share details of the accused available with them and to
intimate the Court granting bail, whenever the accused
approaches them for any consular services.
1.16 Directions be issued to Courts to ensure compliance
of Section 129 of BNSS, 2023 while granting bail to Foreign
national Accused in cases under NDPS involving
commercial quantity
1.17 Directions be issued to Union of India to consider a
specific provision to be incorporated in NDPS Act to enable
the execution bond in terms of Sec. 34 of NDPS Act at the
pre-conviction stage or at the time of granting bail.
1.18 Direction be issued to Ministry of Electronic and
Information Technology and Ministry of Home Affair, to
formulate guidelines/ frame rules for use of Geo-fencing
Technology, if viable, to ensure that accused do not violate
conditions of Bail vis-à-vis geographic limitations.
1.19 Direction to be issued to the Unique Identification
Authority of India in terms of Good Governance (Social,
welfare, innovation, knowledge) Rules, 2020 updated as on
23.10.2023, to allow use of Aadhar Authentication for
Surety Verification.
1.20 Directions to be issued to Union of India to upgrade
and adopt the existing portal, viz. NIDAAN (National
Integrated Database Portal on Arrested Narco Offenders),
by all relevant Law Enforcement Agencies for
comprehensive data entry with respect to NDPS accused,
as well as for effective monitoring, especially of repeat
offenders.
1.21 Directions to the Ministry of Law and Justice &
Ministry of Home Affairs & State Governments/Union
territories, to create and populate a Centralized Database
of Sureties i.e., Surety Information Management System
(SIMS) with provision of allotting a Unique Identification
Number, to each surety.”
Apart from these, further suggestions have been made by the
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 93
learned amicus curiae with due consideration, inter alia, of the
Surety Scrutiny Management Application prepared and used by the
High Court of Karnataka:
“2.1. Directions be issued to Union of India and
States/Union Territories that if fabricated or impersonated
sureties are found to have been verified and accepted based
on police verification reports as well as revenue officers’
verification reports, a departmental inquiry should be
initiated against the concerned officials responsible for such
verification by erring officials including police, revenue with
respect to such negligence, collusion or dereliction of duty.
(Note –There should also be timeline prescribed for initiation
and conclusion of the aforesaid departmental enquiry)
2.2. Directions to be issued to the Reserve Bank of India
to issue appropriate circulars to all banks to link Fixed
Deposit or Bank Account of the person standing surety to the
Bail Bond and create a lien on the Bail Bond amount, in cases
under NDPS involving commercial quantity to accused foreign
national.
2.3. Direction to be issued to the Registrars of all High
Courts to create digital infrastructure/portal for courts to
access and verify financial and property credentials for
authentication of documents/information of surety,
instantaneously & to coordinate with Unique Identification
Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport Highway,
Reserve Bank of India and Revenue Departments of State
Governments/Union territories in this regard.
2.4. Directions to be issued to the Unique Identification
Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport Highway,
Reserve Bank of India and Revenue Departments of State
Governments/Union territories, to issue necessary
circular/directions so that information on Aadhaar, M-
Parivaahan, Bank Account details, Land Registry Records
maintained online by Registrar are accessible through the
aforesaid online portal for real time verification.
2.5. Directions to be issued to Ministry of Home Affairs to
revise FORM 47 of the BNSS, 2023 with relevant legislative
amendment to incorporate enhanced disclosures, biometric
linkage, and declarations regarding previous surety
engagements, & provide for penal consequences for false
statements.
2.6. Directions be issued to High Courts and Judicial
Academies to provide structured training to Courts within
their on the socio‑economic impact of surety‑based bail in
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 94
cases under NDPS involving commercial quantity to accused
foreign national, and its impact for indigent undertrials, and
judicial academies ought to incorporate dedicated modules on
bail jurisprudence, & financial vulnerability of foreign
national Accused accused/convicts in custody in cases under
NDPS involving commercial quantity and access to justice.”
23. For ease, a tabular representation of all the suggestions made
across the bar and the stand of the parties thereon is placed below:
S.No. Suggestions DRI Comments of
Amicus
Curiae on
DRI’s
suggestions
Union of
India
Consolidated
suggestions of
Amicus and
UOI
1. The accused passport
should be mandatorily
deposited either with the
investigating agency or
with the Court to prevent
unauthorized travel.
Yes Yes, with
modification
(no blanket
ban, such a
restriction
should be left
to the
discretion of
the court)
Yes Yes
2. Accused should not be
allowed to travel outside
without permission of the
Trial Court.
Yes Yes Yes Yes
3. Accused should register
themselves with FRRO
within one week of
release and submit a
report to the Trial Court
and Investigating
Agency.
Yes Yes Yes
(no timeline
given)
Yes
4. Issuing immediate Look
Out Notice against
foreign national accused
arrested under NDPS
Act.
Yes No blanket
direction;
discretion
should be
with the
competent
authority
Yes Yes
(within two
working days of
the order
passed)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 95
5. For Foreign national
requirement of two
sureties is mandatory.
Yes Discretion of
competent
court
Yes (in
addition to
cash bail
and
personal
bond)
Yes
(alternatively,
whether one or
two surety,
discretion
should be left
with the Court
to decide.)
6. Requirement of amount
of Cash/Personal Bond
commensurate with the
severity of crime or
percentage of seizure
value of narcotics in the
case.
Yes No, it would
amount to
onerous bail
condition;
Yes Yes but with
modification;
appropriate
surety amount
can be imposed
7. Verification of residential
address of the accused
prior to release.
Yes Yes Yes (by
jurisdiction
al police
and report
it to Trial
Court)
Yes (no later
than three
working days of
furnishing bail
bonds)
8. It is submitted that the
sureties furnished by the
accused should be
genuine, non -
professional, and their
credentials, including
residential addresses
should be verified by
jurisdictional police for
authenticity, before
release of the accused on
bail. Verification of: (i)
Aadhar Card and/or PAN
Card of the Sureties
through respective
government authorities/
portals; (ii) Claim of
employment from the
employing entity/ firm/
company; (iii) Claimed
business activities, if
any, and (iv) Existence of
bank account mentioned
by the sureties, from the
concerned banks, should
invariably be carried out
before the release of the
accused on bail
Yes This
suggestion is
merely a
restatement of
law and
procedure.
What is more
important is
to ensure that
the same
should attract
proportionate
consequences
for the erring
officials.
Yes (for this
purpose,
the
investigatin
g agency
may
coordinate
with the
jurisdiction
al police
station)
Yes (by
investigating
agency within 3
working days of
furnishing bail
bond. This
verification
report be
placed by the
investigating
agency no later
than three days
before the
court where
bail bond was
furnished.)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 96
9. Placing verification of
accused and surety
before the trial court
before the release of the
accused.
Yes This
suggestion is
merely a
restatement of
law and
procedure
Yes -
10. Accused should furnish
complete and verified
contact details, including
a valid mobile number, to
the investigating agency
and shall promptly
report any change
therein and registered
mobile number should
remain active.
Yes This
suggestion is
merely a
restatement of
law and
procedure;
said
requirement
to be strictly
and promptly
enforced
Yes Yes (change
should be
reported within
72 hours of
change)
11. Accused is required to
mark his presence
weekly in the
jurisdictional police
station and report to
investigating officer.
Yes Yes, with
modification
(cannot be
blanket
condition of
all bail orders)
Yes Yes
12. To enable comprehensive
coverage and real-time
verification, an electronic
Aadhaar/PAN-based
authentication system
for verification of sureties
may be explored by
leveraging modern
technologies, in
consultation with
relevant stakeholders
such as UIDAI.
Yes Yes -- Yes
13. Foreign national shall file
an affidavit of his release
on bail within one week
of their bail, stating
source of their funds and
source of their income in
this country, giving
details of their bank
accounts through which
they would be operating
their finances for bearing
their life expenses.
Yes Yes
(reasonable
time should
be given,
failure should
not ipso facto
lead to
cancellation
of bail
Yes (no
timeline
given)
Yes
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 97
14. Forwarding the copy of
the bail order to the
jurisdictional police
station to monitor the
conduct and movement
of the accused
Yes Yes Yes -
15. Immediate action against
the sureties / Forfeiture
of their properties in the
case of violation of bail
condition by the accused.
Yes This
suggestion is
overboard and
contrary to
statutory
scheme
Yes -
16. A certificate from
concerned
embassy/consulate may
also be obtained,
assuring that the
accused shall not leave
the country, shall attend
court hearings and shall
abstain from committing
any further offences.
Yes
(Certificat
e from the
concerned
Embassy/
Consulate
should not
be made a
pre-
condition
for
granting
bail to the
accused.)
Yes Yes (bail
should be
denied if
such a
certificate
is not
granted by
the
concerned
Embassy/C
onsulate)
Yes (within 7
days)
17. Informing Embassies
and Consulates about
the accused along with
the case details and
requesting them to share
details of the accused
and his whereabouts
whenever accused
approaches them for any
consular services.
Yes Yes Yes Yes
18. Investigating Agencies
should expedite filing of
SLPs and seek urgent
listing or early hearing
when bail orders are
challenged.
Yes Unjust and
unreasonable
Yes -
19. Reference of cases
involving foreign national
"Fast Track Court".
Yes -- Yes -
20. In appropriate cases,
Courts may consider
electronic surveillance
Yes Geo-fencing
rather than
Yes Yes with
modification,
use of geo -
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 98
methods and GPS
tagging of the foreign
national accused to
ensure continued
presence within
jurisdiction.
constant
monitoring
fencing
technology if
viable
21. Biometric details,
including iris recognition
of foreign nationals,
should be captured by
the investigating agency
and integrated with
LEAs, BOI/FRRO
database with the
immigration system.
Yes (after
consultati
on with
concerned
ministry
and
relevant
agencies
viz. MHA
and BOI/
FRRO)
Violation of
Article 21
Yes
-
22. A centralized database
containing details of all
foreign nationals
arrested under NDPS Act
by all concerned
enforcement agencies
may be created and made
accessible to all agencies.
Yes
(via
existing
NIDAAN
portal
upgrade)
Yes Yes Yes (via
NIDAAN portal,
especially for
repeated
offenders)
23. The te rm 'Long
incarceration' may be
defined and the same
should be read in terms
of section 479 of BNSS
and section 436A of
CrPC, as presently courts
are construing it
differently and allowing
bail citing long
incarceration as criteria
for greater coordination
amongst all agencies.
Yes Only possible
if "introduced
legislatively"
Yes
-
24. Compliance of Section
129 of BNSS may be
made mandatory and a
specific provision may be
incorporated enabling
execution of a "Bond for
Good Behavi our" in
respect of foreign
nationals involved in
repeated violation.
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 99
25. Statements recorded
under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act may not be
admissible during trial,
they may nevertheless be
considered at the stage of
bail.
Yes No Yes -
26. Provisions of Section 34
of NDPS Act which
provides for execution of
bond by a convicted
accused for abstaining
from commission of any
offence under this Act
can also be considered
for inclusion in the
guidelines.
Yes -- Yes --
27. For registration,
verification, and
monitoring of sureties,
an electronic software
platform, viz. a Surety
Information Management
System (SIMS), may be
further developed and
utilised by the courts and
LEAs.
Yes -- Yes Yes
28. e
s
Foreign nationals
involved in repeat
offences of narcotics
related cases should be
blacklisted and
subsequently deported
after facing trial or
acquittal or completion of
sentence;
-- -- Yes -
29. An undertaking from
Embassy of the country
concerned before grant of
bail that the national
belong to their country.
-- -- Yes
-
ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS BY LD. AMICUS
30. Direction to FRRO, MHA
to create a mechanism
(portal) for accused
foreign nationals to
register themselves with
- Yes - -
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 100
the FRRO within one
week of release on bail
31. Where impersonated
sureties are found to
have been verified and
accepted based on police
verification reports as
well as revenue officers'
verification reports, a
mandatory departmental
inquiry should be
initiated against the
concerned officials
responsible for such
verification- Ministry of
Home Affairs to issue
Advisory, with regards to
Departmental
Consequences on erring
officials including police,
revenue and court staff
with respect to such
negligence, collusion or
dereliction of duty.
There should also be
timeline prescribed for
conclusion of the
aforesaid departmental
enquiry.
- Yes - -
32. Direction can be issued
to RBI to issue
appropriate circular to all
banks to link fixed
deposit or bank account
of concerned surety to
bail bond and create lien
on bail bond amount
Yes -
33. Direction for Registrars
of all High Courts to
create digital
infrastructure/portal for
courts to access and
verify financial and
property credentials for
authentication of
documents/information
of surety.
- Yes - -
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 101
34. Directions to the Unique
Identification Authority
of India, Ministry of Road
Transport Highway,
Reserve Bank of India
and Revenue
Departments to issue
necessary
circular/directions so
that information on
Aadhaar, M-Parivaahan,
Bank Account details,
Land Registry Records
maintained online by
Registrar are accessible
through the aforesaid
online portal for real time
verification.
- Yes - -
35. Directions to Ministry of
Home Affairs to revise
FORM 47 of the BNSS,
2023 with relevant
legislative amendment to
incorporate enhanced
disclosures, biometric
linkage, and declarations
regarding previous
surety engagements,
with penal consequences
for false statements.
- Yes - -
36. High Courts and Judicial
Academies can be
directed to provide
structured training on
the socio -economic
impact of surety-based
bail and the barriers it
creates for indigent
undertrial and judicial
academies ought to
incorporate dedicated
modules on bail
jurisprudence financial
vulnerability and access
to justice.
- Yes - -
37. Introduction of The
Professional Bail
Bondsmen (Regulations)
Rules, 2026 to regulate
- - - Yes
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 102
individuals functioning
as professional bail
bondsmen.
24. The counsel appearing in this matter have put in copious
amounts of effort as evidenced by the detailed suggestions referred
to above. One further aspect that has been suggested is the
introduction of rules governing professional sureties. This is in
recognition of the fact that while sureties are essential to the
manner in which the criminal justice system functions, it may be
that it is not a matter of relative ease for all persons to secure
sureties, particularly foreign nationals who may, for obvious
reasons, lack family connections, adequate finances within the
country. In cases involving foreign nationals and such hard drugs
with severe destructive capacity, sureties who are verified,
accountable, subject to certain rules and regulations become all the
more important.
25. Mr. Raju learned ASG states that currently no rules stand
promulgated in this regard and, as such, the Court may issue
appropriate directions. In doing so, we had requested Mr. Luthra,
to take necessary inputs from all the stakeholders, including the
National Legal Services Authority, and accordingly, all relevant
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 103
documents were handed over to them . The comments and
suggestions given indicate that they support the strengthening of
the surety framework in cases involving foreign nationals ,
specifically in the context of NDPS cases. It has highlighted certain
practical challenges that occur; the need for proportionality; and
case-specific calibration along with preserving judicial discretion.
Power of this Court to issue Directions under Article 142
26. In considering the above said submission, this Court must
properly appreciate the majesty of the power contained under
Article 142, recognising alongside the vastness of this power, that
its use is best made in emergent situations or positions of true
vacuum. The words of a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India
80, best explain the
power, as under:
“47. The plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution are inherent in the Court and
are complementary to those powers which are specifically
conferred on the Court by various statutes though are not
limited by those statutes. These powers also exist independent
of the statutes with a view to do complete justice between the
parties. These powers are of very wide amplitude and are in
the nature of supplementary powers. This power exists as a
separate and independent basis of jurisdiction apart from the
80
(1998) 4 SCC 409
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 104
statutes. It stands upon the foundation and the basis for its
exercise may be put on a different and perhaps even wider
footing, to prevent injustice in the process of litigation and to
do complete justice between the parties . This plenary
jurisdiction is, thus, the residual source of power which this
Court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just and
equitable to do so and in particular to ensure the observance
of the due process of law, to do complete justice between the
parties, while administering justice according to law. There is
no doubt that it is an indispensable adjunct to all other
powers and is free from the restraint of jurisdiction and
operates as a valuable weapon in the hands of the Court to
prevent “clogging or obstruction of the stream of justice”. It,
however, needs to be remembered that the powers conferred
on the Court by Article 142 being curative in nature cannot
be construed as powers which authorise the Court
to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with
a cause pending before it. This power cannot be used to
“supplant” substantive law applicable to the case or cause
under consideration of the Court. Article 142, even with the
width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice
where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory
provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve
something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly.
Punishing a contemner advocate, while dealing with a
contempt of court case by suspending his licence to practice,
a power otherwise statutorily available only to the Bar
Council of India, on the ground that the contemner is also an
advocate, is, therefore, not permissible in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Article 142. The construction of Article 142
must be functionally informed by the salutary purposes of the
article, viz., to do complete justice between the parties. It
cannot be otherwise. As already noticed in a case of contempt
of court, the contemner and the court cannot be said to be
litigating parties.
48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary
for doing complete justice “between the parties in any cause or
matter pending before it”. The very nature of the power must
lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise
those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory
provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the
equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties
by “ironing out the creases” in a cause or matter before
it. Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of
only dispute-settling. It is well recognised and established
that this Court has always been a law-maker and its role
travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a “problem-solver
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 105
in the nebulous areas” (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of
India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but the
substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject-
matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this
Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these
constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be controlled by
any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers
are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come
directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for
in a statute dealing expressly with the subject.”
(emphasis supplied)
In other words, sparing use is the governing principle. Why it is so,
is obvious. It is so because legislating is not within the Court’s
domain in view of the separation of powers, which is a recognised
feature of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution
81. At the
same time, it is well recognised that it is perfectly within the judicial
domain to step in when the need arises, and the same remains in
force until a law in that regard has been enacted by the Parliament.
Let us look to past instances.
26.1 Perhaps the most famous example would be Vishakha v.
State of Rajasthan
82 wherein while adjudicating a writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the immediate
aftermath of the brutal sexual assault of a social worker in
Rajasthan, with the aim of protecting the rights of women under
81
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
82
(1997) 6 SCC 241
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 106
Articles 19 along with 14 and 21, a three Judge Bench of this Court
issued directions under Articles 32 and 141 of the Constitution
declaring guidelines and norms for protection of women against
sexual harassment at the workplace. These guidelines held the field
until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted.
26.2 Prakash Singh v. Union of India
83, was a case that dealt
with the absence of any national-level action regarding the working
and efficacy of the Indian Police Act, 1861, despite the fact that
various committees, at different points of time, had recommended
certain changes/amendments etc. Considering the same situation
and relying on Vineet Narain v Union of India
84, while observing
as under:
“26. Having regard to (i) the gravity of the
problem; (ii) the urgent need for
preservation and strengthening of the rule
of law; (iii) pendency of even this petition for
the last over ten years; (iv) the fact that
various commissions and committees have
made recommendations on similar lines for
introducing reforms in the police set-up in
the country; and (v) total uncertainty as to
when police reforms would be introduced,
we think that there cannot be any further
wait, and the stage has come for issuing of
appropriate directions for immediate
compliance so as to be operative till such
time a new model Police Act is prepared by
83
(2006) 8 SCC 1
84
(1998) 1 SCC 226
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 107
the Central Government and/or the State
Governments pass the requisite
legislations. It may further be noted that the
quality of the criminal justice system in the
country, to a large extent, depends upon the
working of the police force. Thus, having
regard to the larger public interest, it is
absolutely necessary to issue the requisite
directions...”
The Court directed the establishment of a state security
commission, police establishment board and police complaint
authority laying down norms for selection and tenure of the Director
General of Police as also the Inspector General, and setting up a
National Security Commission at the national level.
26.3 We should also discuss Vineet Narain (supra) here. That
case, though, originally concerned the inertia of the Central Bureau
of Investigation in conducting investigations, but later evolved to
have a much wider scope. More than the facts of the case, though,
or the individual directions, the discussion of Article 142 is
instructive for our purposes:
“49. There are ample powers conferred by Article 32
read with Article 142 to make orders which have the
effect of law by virtue of Article 141 and there is
mandate to all authorities to act in aid of the orders
of this Court as provided in Article 144 of the
Constitution. In a catena of decisions of this Court,
this power has been recognised and exercised, if
need be, by issuing necessary directions to fill the
vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to
cover the gap or the executive discharges its role…
…
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 108
51. In exercise of the powers of this Court under
Article 32 read with Article 142, guidelines and
directions have been issued in a large number of
cases and a brief reference to a few of them is
sufficient. In Erach Sam Kanga v. Union of India [
WP No. 2632 of 1978 decided on 20-3-1979] the
Constitution Bench laid down certain guidelines
relating to the Emigration Act. In Lakshmi Kant
Pandey v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 244] (In re,
Foreign Adoption), guidelines for adoption of minor
children by foreigners were laid down. Similarly
in State of W.B. v. Sampat Lal [(1985) 1 SCC 317 :
1985 SCC (Cri) 62 : (1985) 2 SCR 256] , K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 :
1991 SCC (Cri) 734] , Union Carbide
Corpn. v. Union of India [(1991) 4 SCC 584] , Delhi
Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 4
SCC 406] (Nadiad case), Delhi Development
Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P)
Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 622] and Dinesh Trivedi,
M.P. v. Union of India [(1997) 4 SCC 306] guidelines
were laid down having the effect of law, requiring
rigid compliance. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Assn. v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC
441] (IInd Judges case) a nine-Judge Bench laid
down guidelines and norms for the appointment
and transfer of Judges which are be ing rigidly
followed in the matter of appointments of High
Court and Supreme Court Judges and transfer of
High Court Judges. More recently
in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241
: 1997 SCC (Cri) 932] elaborate guidelines have
been laid down for observance in workplaces
relating to sexual harassment of working women.
In Vishaka [(1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932]
it was said: (SCC pp. 249-50, para 11)
“11. The obligation of this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of
these fundamental rights in the absence of
legislation must be viewed along with the role
of judiciary envisaged in the Beijing
Statement of Principles of the Independence
of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region.
These principles were accepted by the Chief
Justices of Asia and the Pacific at Beijing in
1995 (*) (As amended at Manila, 28th
August, 1997) as those representing the
minimum standards necessary to be
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 109
observed in order to maintain the
independence and effective functioning of the
judiciary. The objectives of the judiciary
mentioned in the Beijing Statement are:
“Objectives of the Judiciary:
10. The objectives and functions of the
Judiciary include the following:
(a) to ensure that all persons are able to
live securely under the rule of law;
(b) to promote, within the proper limits of
the judicial function, the observance and
the attainment of human rights; and
(c) to administer the law impartially among
persons and between persons and the
State.”
Thus, an exercise of this kind by the court is now a
well-settled practice which has taken firm roots in
our constitutional jurisprudence. This exercise is
essential to fill the void in the absence of suitable
legislation to cover the field.”
26.4 Common Cause v. Union of India
85, is a Constitution Bench
judgment of this Court where passive euthanasia was recognised as
permissible. The Court issued directions under Article 142 for the
issuance of advance directive which, it was held, could be issued by
an adult of a healthy state of mind, laying down the procedure to be
followed in unambiguous terms for the possibility that, at a point of
time in future, medical treatment to them should be withheld or
withdrawn.
85
(2018) 5 SCC 1
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 110
26.5 In Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, In
re
86, a co-ordinate Bench was dealing with writ petitions filed by
persons aggrieved of their commercial/residential properties being
demolished without following due process of law. It was held that
the Court had a duty to put to rest the fears of members of society,
and as such issued directions under Article 142, laying down the
procedure to be followed when the government decides to undertake
any demolition, such as issuance of notice, hearing the parties
before passing a demolition order, appealing against that order, as
also the very process of demolition itself.
26.6 Gohar Mohammed v. U.P. SRTC
87, was an appeal arising
out of a motor accident claim case. The facts of the said case were
nothing out of the ordinary, and the appeal against concurrent
findings of the Courts below was dismissed. However, in the course
of the proceedings, the issue of delay in disposal of claim cases both
at the tribunal and appellate level arose, and the court deemed fit
to issue the requisite directions regarding how multiple claim
petitions in respect of the same accident are to be dealt with,
86
(2025) 5 SCC 1
87
(2023) 4 SCC 381
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 111
thereby minimizing the time taken in disposal. Directions were
issued to Courts, police authorities, as also insurance companies.
26.7 In Resident's Welfare Assn. v. State (UT of Chandigarh)
88,
this Court was dealing with an appeal from an order passed in writ
petitions filed by Resident Welfare Associations in the city of
Chandigarh. The grievance was the grant of permission to
developers/sellers across various areas concerning the
development in the city. In these proceedings, the Court issued
directions under Article 142 for protection of Corbusian
Chandigarh, recognising its modern heritage value including the
constitution of heritage committee which would be responsible,
inter-alia, for grant of permissions for constructions.
26.8 In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra
89, this
Court issued directions intended to clarify and streamline directions
issued in earlier matters concerning the recording of evidence by
vulnerable witnesses.
26.9 In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
90, a Constitution
Bench of this Court held that by virtue of the power under this
88
(2023) 8 SCC 643
89
(2022) 18 SCC 24
90
(2023) 14 SCC 231
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 112
Article, this Court may grant divorce to the parties on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of the marriage while hearing a transfer
petition “in view of settlement between the parties, has the discretion
to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual
consent, without being bound by the procedural requirement to move
the second motion.” and also grant the same even if one of the
parties opposes it “ …to do “complete justice” to the parties, wherein
this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the
marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the
parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal
relationship is unjustified….”.
27. All of the instances above make it abundantly clear that this
Court has on various occasions exercised this power and done so
across different areas of law and also in cases across jurisdictions.
Throughout, it has been clear that this Court is putting in place
stop-gap arrangements, leaving it open for the legislative wing of the
Government to step in as and when it deems fit. It could be argued
that in the present case the justification for invocation of Article 142
is difficult for the reason that each State/High Court does have a
process in place. So, is there indeed a gap in which this power could
be exercised? While we acknowledge that such a view is possible,
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 113
we are also aware that despite these processes being in place, cases
such as the present one have arisen, giving rise to unfortunate
circumstances where the accused has fled. Now, although, in this
case the contraband substance was seized and the demonstrated ill
effects thereof could not be spread into society, the conspiracy of
which the accused was a part may still be at large. It is equally
possible that in another case the contraband substance could be
released in the society causing unrecognisable levels of havoc and
the same may continue, if the perpetrators are not brought to the
book. That apart, it also appears to us quite plainly, that in cases
involving foreign offenders, the general processes of surety
verification may not, by itself, be sufficient.
After all, at the cost of repetition it be stated that sureties are
the very people who are responsible for ensuring that the accused
is available to the investigative/judicial authorities as and when
required, and if these people themselves turn out to be fake, false
or non-existent, the process in place is rendered entirely ineffective,
putting an irreparable loss to the security and shaking the
confidence in the justice delivery system. Still further, as we have
already noticed above, this issue has engaged the attention of at
least two High Courts, as also this Court, even though, in the latter
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 114
situation, no constructive output could be elicited. In these
circumstances, and in view of lack of uniformity across
jurisdictions, we are of the view that the exercise of power under
Article 142 would be appropriate and justified.
OUR VIEW
Analysing The Inputs – and Our Opinion Thereupon
28. As the paragraphs above demonstrate, learned counsel
appearing for the parties have made numerous suggestions to this
Court. Having concluded that the exercise of power under Article
142 would be justified, we now proceed to assess the merits of each
of the suggestions. Here only, we may clarify that our discussion,
directions and suggestions are confined only to accused who are
foreign nationals involved in cases concerning commercial quantity
of contraband under NDPS Act.
28.1 Regarding deposit of passport of the foreign national accused
in an NDPS case involving a commercial quantity, DRI, the Union
of India and the amicus are in agreement. At the outset, it is stated
that freedom of movement as enshrined in Article 19(1)(d) is not a
right enjoyed by foreigners
91. A three-judge Bench of this Court in
91
See: Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. State of W.B., (1955) 1 SCC 167 (Constitution Bench);
Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104 (Three Judge Bench)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 115
Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India
92, restated this position
of law as follows:
“79. In State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram
Chakma [1994 Supp (1) SCC 615] following Louis De
Raedt [(1991) 3 SCC 554 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 886] , it was
held that the fundamental right of a foreigner is confined
to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the
right to reside and stay in this country, as mentioned in
Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of
the country. After referring to some well-known and
authoritative books on international law it was observed
that the persons who reside in the territories of countries
of which they are not nationals, possess a special status
under international law. States reserve the right to expel
them from their territory and to refuse to grant them
certain rights which are enjoyed by their own nationals
like right to vote, hold public office or to engage in
political activities. Aliens may be debarred from joining
the civil services or certain profession or from owning
some properties and the State may place them under
restrictions in the interest of national security or public
order. Nevertheless, once lawfully admitted to a territory,
they are entitled to certain immediate rights necessary to
the enjoyment of ordinary private life. …”
Be that as it may, the deposit of passport is a serious condition
which, in our view, is commensurate with the gravity of the offence,
since cases involving commercial quantities under the Act, have
heightened punishments.
In a scenario which involves an Indian citizen, an alternative,
statutory process is in place i.e., impounding of the passport.
Depositing the same before a Court is, in a way, less severe and
cumbersome than impounding of a passport under the Passports
92
(2005) 5 SCC 665
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 116
Act 1967, to secure the presence of the accused. We say so because
this Act provides, under Section 10(3)(e), for impounding of a
passport when proceedings are pending before a criminal Court. It
is an entirely independent procedure involving a statutory authority
and not the Court directly, and the same should not be resorted to
as a matter of course in the interest of investigation as also justice.
While the DRI and the Union are desirous for the depositing
of passport to be a mandatory condition in case of a foreign national
accused in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, the learned
amicus suggests that the imposition of this condition should be left
to the discretion of the concerned Court. Considering the fact that
we are concerned with cases involving commercial quantities of
narcotics and psychotropic substances which have various
unpleasant and unwelcome effects on the country, we are of the
view that depositing of passport is justified as being mandatory. At
the same time, it has to be observed that until a person is convicted
the presumption of innocence must remain in unrestricted
operation. As such, in view of Para 31 of Satwant Singh Sawhney
v. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer
93 which, in the
93
1967 SCC OnLine SC 21 (Followed in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC
645; see also: K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1)
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 117
words of K. Subba Rao CJ holds that no person, can be denied the
right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution, except
under procedure established by law; and as already established,
Article 21 rights are available to foreigners as well. We hold that an
accused whose passport has been so deposited shall have the right
to make an application to the concerned Court seeking release
thereof, enabling him to travel, either domestically or
internationally as the case may be subject to such conditions as
may have been imposed by the concerned Court including the
requirement of express permission before travelling outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Whenever an accused makes an
application for release of passport, the same has to be decided
expeditiously, in a time-bound manner i.e., preferably within four
weeks from the date of application.
28.2 The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) is an office
under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India that is
tasked with the regulation of foreigners in India, including their
stay and travel. Registration with this office immediately/soon after
release from prison furnishes relevant information to this
department, updating them that a particular person has been
accused of a crime of serious nature. Accordingly, the department
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 118
will be able to address any issue pursuant to the requests that may
be received by it from such an individual in future. This would also
be regarding visa extension, etc. All parties are ad idem on this.
28.3 The issuance of ‘Look Out notices’ against all such accused
has been recommended by all three entities. A LON essentially
means that all ports of travel will be notified regarding such person,
restricting their right to travel. This cannot be issued as a matter of
course in all cases as it depends upon, inter alia, the gravity of the
offence and the role ascribed to the accused. The restriction on the
right to travel has itself been made conditional by the concerned
Court specifically imposing the same, and it is agreed that the
deposition of the passport has been made mandatory. Whether or
not to issue an LON is within the domain of the Executive. The
Court may, if it finds it fit and justified by the facts and
circumstances of a case, too, impose it as a condition. No further
directions need to be issued by us in this regard.
28.4 The production of two sureties of a like amount, in our view,
merits acceptance as a matter of abundant caution. To hold only
one person to be entirely responsible for an accused foreign
national may, in certain cases, be placing an undue burden upon
them. At the same time, it may also be a possibility that the accused
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 119
may not be able to produce two sureties, given lack of contacts and
connections. Such a condition, if held to be entirely inelastic, may
become a hindrance to bail itself, and as such it is held to be
applicable in ordinary circumstances, relaxable, at the instance of
the Court once it records the reasons therefor. Needless to add, the
sureties so produced, necessarily, must be genuine, with all their
credentials including identity, address and bank-related
documents being duly verified by the jurisdictional police and/or
authorities of Court and placed before the Court for perusal and
recording its satisfaction therewith. The satisfaction respectively of
the police and the Court ensures a double layer of scrutiny of the
documents so produced.
28.5 It is suggested that cash-bond should be commensurate with
the severity of the crime or to the quantity of the narcotics
recovered. The right to bail being contingent upon the payment of
money which may in certain cases be a very large amount, will be
inappropriate. It is left to the discretion of the Court whether or not
the requirement of cash/personal bond is justified in a particular
case.
28.6 The residential address of the accused where he is purported
to be staying after release on bail, must necessarily be verified by
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 120
the police authorities upon the accused securing an order of bail in
his favour. This ensures verification of the latest address, as
provided, proximate to the release, and the same be placed before
the Court. The accused is also required to provide a valid phone
number to the Court in the surety bond (as given below in Para
28.26) signed by him. This is also to be verified by the authorities.
This number, which must be kept active at all times, is the primary
source of contact that the authorities will have with the accused in
order to secure his presence, as and when required.
28.7 One of the suggestions by the entities is that the accused be
required to, weekly, mark his presence in the jurisdictional police
station and report to the investigating officer. It is difficult to
mandate the same across the board . The Courts seized of the
matter are the best suited to determine the frequency of presence
before itself or before the authorities for it is them, who have
interacted with the accused and have a first-hand understanding
of the circumstances and behaviour of the accused.
28.8 In furtherance of real time verification, Aadhaar/PAN based
verification of sureties, in consultation with the UIDAI has been
unanimously suggested. We refrain from issuing a direction in this
regard for there are rules in place whereunder an application can
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 121
be made by the Government to the concerned body to implement
the same. As such, if it is deemed fit, the Government may proceed
accordingly.
28.9 The entities submit that the accused should disclose by way
of an affidavit, the source of their funds and the details of the bank
accounts maintained by them in the country within one week from
the date of release on bail. Ordered accordingly.
28.10 The suggestion regarding the forwarding of the bail order to
the jurisdictional police station of the residence of the accused ‘to
monitor the conduct and movement of the accused’, in our view, may
be too broad. While undoubtedly an order granting bail to an
accused should be forwarded to the concerned police station, that
cannot be a ground to constantly monitor the movement of the
accused, so long as the conditions as imposed by the Trial Court
are being scrupulously complied with, by him.
28.11 The DRI and the Union of India suggest that in case an
accused violates the bail conditions, the properties of the surety
linked with such bail conditions should be immediately forfeited
and necessary actions be taken against them. The learned amicus
opposed this condition as being overbroad. Given the peculiarity of
a foreign national being involved and contraband in question being
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 122
commercial quantities, we agree with this suggestion. In each case,
a lien/charge will be created over the property, both movable and
immovable, and in the event of the accused jumping the bail and
the surety bond being forfeited, it shall be open for the Court to
forfeit the same. Ordered accordingly.
28.12 When it comes to the certificates from Embassies to be
obtained by the accused, we are of the view that such a certificate
‘assuring’ that the accused will not leave the country etc., would
not be appropriate for the primary purpose of an Embassy, which
is to maintain diplomatic relations in the host country, while
providing certain services to the residents of the country residing
in the latter. It cannot be said that assuring/ensuring presence of
an accused is within the scope of their actions, either before or after
bail. Be that as it may, the investigating officer of a particular crime
shall inform the Consulate/Embassy of the country of origin of the
accused that they are an accused in an offence, so that they may
be aware of the proceedings against one of their citizens in the
country and may even be abl e to provide them with consular
services if required.
28.13 Those cases in which a foreign national is an accused should
be taken up by the concerned Court on priority. It is undisputed
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 123
that crime of this nature is on the rise and as such the urgency to
deal with such matters is justified, sending across a message of
deterrence to the world in as much as the drug trade in India is
concerned.
28.14 All three entities suggest that electronic surveillance
methods (gps-tagging/geo-fencing) should be considered for a
foreign national accused, to ensure their continued presence within
the jurisdiction. In our view, the introduction thereof cannot be
done through judicial decision-making and requires consideration
of all relevant aspects by the Legislature, which may, in light
whereof and after due consideration of the judgments of this Court
in Frank Vitus supra , frame rules in that regard. Further
suggestion has been made by the DRI and the Union that the
biometric details of foreign national accused persons should be
obtained and maintained in a database that is linked across
agencies. This suggestion also we leave it to the Executive to decide.
28.15 It has been unanimously suggested that there should be a
centralised database of all foreign nationals accused under the
NDPS Act accessible across agencies. We accept this submission,
for this will enable speedy verification of sureties and also highlight
repeated use of the same particulars either in the same or other
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 124
jurisdictions; as also it will aid the different bodies within the law
enforcement in the country, such as police, customs, and border
patrol etc., to access all relevant information immediately. This may
be done through upgrading the National Integrated Database Portal
on Arrested Narco Offenders (NIDAAN) portal or in a manner as
deemed fit by the Union Government.
28.16 It is suggested that the term ‘long incarceration’ be defined,
for it is a primary ground of bail in view of the observations in
Najeeb supra. This Court, in State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh
94,
in Paras 20-23, observed that this phrase had not been defined and
also further made reference to Tasleem Ahmed, which has already
referred the question for consideration.
28.17 It is suggested that Section 129 BNSS be made applicable to
NDPS cases. There is a difficulty in accepting this suggestion, for
the text of the Section clearly lays down the scope of its application
by listing out the statutes in the context of which it may be applied.
There is another suggestion regarding Section 34 of the NDPS Act,
which provides for taking of a bond from a convict to abstain from
committing any offence. As the words of the Section make clear, it
deals with ‘convicts’ and not ‘undertrials’. Whether or not such a
94
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 125
bond is to be taken from the convict is in the discretion of the
concerned Court, not warranting the issuance of any direction from
this Court.
28.18 The DRI and the Union suggest that statements recorded
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, should be admissible at the bail
stage even though the judgment in Tofan Singh supra says that
statements under this Section are inadmissible. Such a submission
would need to be dealt with in appropriate proceedings, not in this
case.
28.19 The suggestion that departmental enquiries be initiated
against persons who were involved in the verification of sureties
upon the discovery that they were fake, is a suggestion that merits
acceptance, for the process of verification conducted by these
officials is the bedrock on which the Court accepts the same and
eventually releases the accused. If it is found on the same set of
evidence as verified by these officials that, in fact, the details were
fake or false, responsibility should be imputed upon them. It has to
be said, however, that the standard of care that these officials are
required to abide by can be only ‘reasonable’ and not unduly ‘strict’.
28.20 As suggested, a digital portal for the verification of financial
and property credentials of sureties appears to be expedient. It will
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 126
add a layer of protection to that part of the surety verification
process that has been directed to be done physically, and it will
create a speedy mechanism for that part of the process which does
not require physical effort on the part of the authorities.
28.21 Judicial Academies should provide training to judges
regarding its impact and aspects of financial vulnerabilities and
access to justice. This suggestion, in our view, is merited. Socio-
economic difficulties faced by accused persons, including foreign
nationals, should not be a ground which makes the relief of bail
difficult to obtain for them. Judges need to uphold the letter of the
law but not do so blind to all attending circumstances.
28.22 It has been jointly suggested that the existing mechanism of
a “Surety Information Management System ” (SIMS) be further
developed and implemented. Also, the amicus suggests that the
High Courts design and implement their own infrastructure portals
for verification of sureties. We are of the view that if such a portal
exists, it would only be in the best interest of all stakeholders if the
same is used as best possible to have an integrated Data
Management System within the criminal justice machinery of the
country.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 127
28.23 The Union of India has suggested that foreign nationals
involved in repeated offences of narcotics-related cases be
blacklisted and deported. We cannot accept this suggestion. There
are processes in place whereunder each and every individual case,
either for blacklisting or deportation, has to be considered. No
individual can be condemned without the due process of law.
28.24 Another suggestion by the Union of India is that the
Embassy or Consulate of the country of origin of the foreign
national accused shall provide an undertaking to the Court that the
said accused is a citizen of their country. We find no merit in such
a suggestion in view of the involvement of, and implications for,
international relations.
28.25 A suggestion has been made to the effect that information
across entities such as UIDAI, M-Parivahan, Land Registry Records,
MoRTH be maintained online and be accessible for real-time
verification of sureties. In our view, such a direction would be too
wide.
28.26 Regarding the issue of sureties, both personal and
professional, a specific form has been suggested by the parties
specifically dealing with offences under the NDPS Act and the
offences having been committed by foreign nationals. It is necessary
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 128
that all relevant details regarding nationality; visa; quantity
involved be stated, and records with respect thereto, be maintained
across levels, ensuring that there is verification and application of
mind by authorities at multiple levels. The proposed Form47-A as
modified by us is reproduced hereinbelow:
“BOND AND BAIL-BOND FOR ATTENDANCE BEFORE OFFICER
IN CHARGE OF POLICE STATION OR COURT (FOR FOREIGN
NATIONALS
IN NDPS CASES – COMMERCIAL QUANTITY)
(See Sections 478, 479, 480, 481, 482(3) and 485)
I, __________(Full Name of Accused), Nationality:__________,
Passport No.(date of issuance and date of
expiration):________________, Issued by: ____________(Country
name), Visa Details:__________(date of issuance and date of
expiration), Resident of:_______________ (Complete Permanent
Address Abroad), currently residing at _________ (Complete address
in India) and Contact Details i.e., Phone No.________________,
having been arrested or detained without warrant by the Officer-in-
Charge of __________________Police Station/Investigating Authority,
(or having been brought before the Court of ___________________),
and having been charged with the offence under Section(s)
__________________of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 involving __ substance and being a commercial quantity
of ___ weight, and being required to give security for my attendance
before such Officer or Court that I shall attend before the said
Officer or Court on every day on which any investigation or trial is
held with regard to such charge, and in case of my making default
on the aforestated condition or the requirements of the undertaking
annexed herewith, I bind myself to forfeit to the Government a sum
of Rs. ____________/- (Rupees _________________only).
I will abide by my undertaking which annexed hereto as Annexure
– I.
Dated this __________ day of____________, 20_____.
(Signature)”
Annexure I
UNDERTAKING BY THE ACCUSED
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 129
I, __________(Name of Accused), S/o / D/o / W/o _________,
Resident of:_______________ (Complete Permanent Address Abroad),
currently residing at _________ (Complete address in India) Contact
Details i.e., Phone No. ________________, having Passport No. (date
of issuance and date of expiration): ________________, Issued by:
____________(Country name), Visa Details:__________(date of
issuance and date of expiration), having been arrested or detained
without warrant by the Officer - in-Charge of
__________________Police Station, (or having been brought before the
Court of ___________________), and having been charged with the
offence under Section(s) __________________of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 involving __ substance and
being a commercial quantity of ___ weight, and having been directed
to be released on bail upon execution of bail bond, do hereby
solemnly undertake as under:
1. That I shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the
concerned agency and/or the Hon’ble Court on each and every date
of hearing, inquiry, investigation, or trial, as directed, unless
specifically exempted by a written order of the Court, and that I
shall remain available to the Investigating Agency and the Court at
all times during the pendency of the proceedings and shall not
abscond or evade the process of law.
2. That I shall strictly comply with all the terms and conditions of
bail imposed by this Hon’ble Court or by any authority competent
under law, and shall not leave the territory of India or the
jurisdiction as specified by the Court in its order, without prior
permission of this Hon’ble Court.
3. That I shall provide my residential address and mobile number
to the Hon’ble Court and the Investigating Officer, and shall not
change my place of residence and mobile number without obtaining
prior permission, and that I shall promptly inform the Court, the
Investigating Officer of the concerned agency, and the concerned
Embassy, of any change in my residential address, mobile number,
or other contact details.
4. That I shall report periodically to the concerned Police Station,
FRRO or Embassy or any other authority, as may be directed by
this Hon’ble Court from time to time.
5. That I shall, within the time granted by this Hon’ble Court, file
an affidavit disclosing my source of funds, income, and particulars
of bank accounts, if any, operated by me in India, and shall
cooperate in any lawful verification thereof. The same shall be
communicated to the concerned Investigation agency.
6. That I shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating
Officer of the concerned agency or, nor shall I tamper with the
evidence or interfere with the course of justice in any manner
whatsoever.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 130
7. That I shall not commit any offence, of similar nature, during the
pendency of the present case and shall conduct myself in a lawful
and responsible manner.
8. That I understand and undertake that in the event of breach of
any of the conditions of this undertaking or the bail bond, I shall be
liable for forfeiture of the bond amount to the Government and a
ground for cancellation of bail.
I make this undertaking voluntarily, consciously and without any
coercion, fully understanding the legal consequences thereof.
(Signature)”
SURETY BOND
IN THE COURT OF ____________________________
Case / FIR No.: ____________________
Police Station: ____________________
Offences under: ____________________
State vs. __________________________
I, _____________(full name of Surety as per Adhaar Card), S/o / D/o
/
W/o ___________, aged about ___ years, do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under:
1. I offer myself as Surety for __________________________ (name and
particulars of the accused), who has been charged under Section(s)
__________________________ of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 involving __ substance and being a
commercial quantity of ___ weight, and who has been directed to be
released on bail vide order/judgment dated ____________ passed by
the Hon’ble ___________________ Court, upon furnishing bail bond
in the sum of Rs.
____________/- (Rupees ______________only) with
__________surety/sureties in the like amount.
2. That my particulars are as under: -
a) Permanent Address: __________________________
b) Present Address (if different): __________________________
c) Occupation: __________________________
d) Employer details (if in service):
Name & full address of employer:
________________
OR
Details of Place of work and Business Name, if self-employed:
e) Aadhar Card No. _______________
f) Passport No. (if any)__________
g) Immovable property owned (if any): Location, approximate value,
share/interest,
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 131
and encumbrances: ___________________
h) Bank Account(s) details:
Name of Bank & Branch: __________________________
Account Type & last balance: __________________________
i) Relationship with the accused:
☐ Family Member ☐ Friend ☐ Other: __________________
j) Duration of personal acquaintance with accused: __________
k) Whether you have stood surety in any other case/s, if any:
l) ☐ No ☐ Yes (details of accused, case no., court & amount):
m) Whether any surety bond executed by me has ever been forfeited:
☐ No ☐ Yes (details of accused, case no., court & amount):
______________
n) Whether any application for suretyship by me was rejected
earlier:
☐ No ☐ Yes (details of case no., court & amount along with reason
rejection):_________
o) Whether you have ever been accused/convicted in any criminal
case:
☐ No ☐ Yes (details): __________________________
p) Any other relevant particulars regarding income/assets
including liabilities (for example loans, mortgages, personal
guarantees, insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings):
_____________________
3.Documents Filed:
S.
No.
Documents to be furnished (No. 1, and any 2 documents
from documents No.2 to 5
1. Aadhaar Card (along with locker copy)
2. PAN Card, if any (along with Digi locker copy)
3. Passport if any (along with Digi locker copy)
4. Driving license, if any (along with Digi Locker copy)
5. Water Bill of residence
Or
Electricity Bill of residence
Or
Rent Agreement, if living on rent
Or
Proof of Gas Connection at residence
6. Income Tax Assessment Order for 2 previous financial
years (if any)
7. Form 16 A Certificate of TDS, if employed
8. Bank Account statement under the name and seal of the
concerned bank manager or authorised officer thereof
9. Coloured Passport Size Photograph (taken not less than
one week prior to giving surety)
4. I am an Indian citizen permanently residing in India.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 132
5. I shall ensure the presence of the accused before this Hon’ble Court
as and when required.
6. I undertake to immediately inform the Court if I learn that the
accused is attempting to abscond or is acting in violation of any bail
condition/s.
7. I consent to verification of my identity, address, and financial
capacity, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, and property
records.
8. I consent to the creation of lien for the surety amount on the money
instrument or property either immovable or movable, furnished by me
at the time of standing surety.
I hereby bind myself to the Government to pay the sum of Rs.
________/
(Rupees _________________only) in the event of forfeiture under Section
491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Name & Signature of Surety)
VERIFICATION
Verified at ________ on this ___________ day of _______, that the
contents of the undertaking are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom, no
part of it is untrue.
(Name & Signature of Surety)
Identified by:___________
Name & Signature of the Advocate:_________________________
Date:_____________
Place:____________”
Directions
29. Having considered the entire material placed before us and
given our anxious consideration to the suggestions made by all,
including the Union of India and the learned amicus curiae, we deem
it appropriate to issue the following directions, applicable in cases
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 133
involving (a) a foreign national; and (b) an accused in a case
involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act:
(i) The passport of the accused foreign national shall be deposited
with the jurisdictional Court. Concomitantly, the Court may place
a restriction upon the accused’s ability to travel outside the country
without its prior permission;
(ii) The accused so released on bail shall register within one week
of release with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO)
and inform, in writing to the investigating officer as also the
concerned Court of having made such registration;
(iii) The FRRO, in consultation with the relevant departments of
the Government, shall cause to be made and implemented a portal
for the purpose of direction no.(ii);
(iv) An accused foreign national shall mandatorily produce two
sureties of like amount to secure bail. If the concerned Court is of
the considered view, upon it being so demonstrated to them, that
despite sufficient effort it has become difficult/impossible to secure
two sureties, the concerned Court may relax this condition by way
of a written order recording reasons;
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 134
(v) The process of verification of sureties shall, in all cases, be done
within 3 days, and the verification report be placed before the Trial
Court prior to the release of the accused. If this timeline is not
followed, the reasons therefor be recorded and brought to the notice
of the concerned Court;
(vi) Even if the residential address of the accused and, other contact
information etc., within India was verified during the course of
investigation, the same shall be re-verified, physically, within three
days of the order of granting bail but prior to the completion of the
process of the accused being released on bail;
(vii) The accused foreign national shall file before the concerned
Court, an affidavit indicating their source of income/funds within
India and also give details of all bank accounts, if any, in the
country;
(viii) The concerned Investigating Officer shall, through written
communication, inform the Embassy of the country of origin of the
accused of their involvement in the alleged crime;
(ix) The Ministry of Law and Justice along with the National
Informatics Centre shall create a centralised database wherein all
particulars of each individual, both accused and as well as those
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 135
who stand as a surety for foreign nationals accused in NDPS cases,
shall be entered;
(x) When sureties, purportedly verified, are later discovered to be
fake, all officials concerned (Police, Court officials and Revenue
officials) with the verification process shall face a departmental
inquiry for dereliction of duty. The Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, and its counterparts in the States shall issue
necessary guidelines for the departments concerned to proceed
against erring officials;
(xi) When a person stands as surety in favour of a foreign national
accused, a lien/charge equal to the amount of the surety bond be
created on their property in any form , including immovable
property. In case of violation of the condition imposed, the
concerned Court may, in the attending facts and circumstances of
each case, direct the realization of such lien.
(xii) All High Courts through their respective IT Committees shall
take steps to implement the creation of a digital portal through
which speedy verification and authentication of documents such as
property and finance can be carried out . The High Court of
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 136
Karnataka, as already observed supra, has taken steps in this
regard. Perhaps they’re worth emulating.
(xiii) An additional form to be numbered as Form -47A, as
reproduced in the preceding section (para 28.26) to be inserted after
Form 47 of BNSS 2023.
Suggestions
30. We have, above, issued several directions. There are yet some
other aspects which we find to be deserving consideration by the
relevant authorities and taking steps in pursuance thereof as may
be warranted. The following are those suggestions:
(i) True it is that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Moti Ram
(supra) the concept of professional sureties was equated with touts
and looked at with a general view of disdain, however we are of the
view that one of the hallmarks of the Indian Constitutional system
is its openness to adopting evolved views and not being stuck to
those taken in the past conditions upon the fact that the latter view
is also firmly rooted in constitutional moorings. As such, in certain
cases, possibly, professional sureties may be the only answer. We
had asked Mr. Raju, learned ASG, and Mr. Luthra to explore this
aspect. They have, after an in-depth study, informed us that as
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 137
such no rules exist in this regard. In that view of the matter, they
have furnished draft rules which we have studied, analysed and
amended as is suitable, as given in Annexure I.
The introduction of the professional bondsmen system can only be
made, even for the limited purposes pertaining to foreign nationals
in NDPS cases, after an in-depth study of all relevant laws, the
socio-economic impact of professionalising the securing of liberty,
and benefiting from a comparative perspective, etc. It may also be
observed that when the rules were proposed by the learned amicus
in consultation with the Union of India, the same contained not only
individuals functioning as bail bondsmen, but also entities or
limited liability partnerships functioning as bail bondsmen entities.
That too, in our view, is a matter that requires in-depth
consideration of all relevant factors, including adequate attention
being paid to the positives and negatives in the context of the socio-
legal milieu, of the corporatization of bail. The Executive must take
a call on this issue.
(ii) As a matter of ordinary practice, the physical verification of
sureties is undertaken by the Investigating Officer, after which the
surety and the relevant documents of the surety are produced
before the Court for the satisfaction of the Magistrate. As per the
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 138
report of the concerned judge, the established processes were
followed here as well. But, clearly, there needs to be some change
in the process. Possibly, each district Court may be provided with
human resources specifically meant for this purpose. When these
specifically designated persons undertake a verification, they shall
make all practical attempts to join at least two independent
witnesses in this verification;
(iii) The relevant authorities of the Government as also the Court
may take all steps to effectively develop Surety Information
Management System (SIMS) as a paradigm across all States for
effective storage and management of information;
(iv) Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology may, if
found feasible, after due consideration of this Court’s judgments,
inter alia K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) , frame guidelines for
implementation of geo-fencing technologies and also outline the
kind of cases in which this method may be used.
(v) The appellant, through the concerned Ministry, may make an
application in the prescribed form to UIDAI to facilitate the use of
Aadhaar authentication procedures for surety verification in terms
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 139
of the Aadhaar Authentication for Good Governance (Social,
Welfare, Innovation, Knowledge) Rules, 2020
95.
(vi) The Ministry of Home Affairs may consider whether the NDPS
Act, 1985, be included in the list of statutes mentioned under
Section 129 of the BNSS 2023, whereby the Executive Magistrate
may require an offender residing within the jurisdiction to execute
a bond for good behaviour.
(vii) Judicial Academies should provide training to judges/judicial
officers regarding the interrelationship of social and economic
realities, especially financial vulnerabilities, with access to justice,
when it comes to surety-based bail.
31. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary,
Department of Law and Justice, Government of India, and to the
Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories for
necessary follow-up action. Let the same also be sent to the
Registrars General of the High Courts, who shall ensure its onward
circulation to the Trial Courts for compliance.
32. Let a copy of this judgment also be sent to the Chief Justice,
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, through the Registrar
95
SWIK Rules
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 140
General, and the DGPM, to determine action, if any, that needs to
be taken against the officials of the concerned Trial Court, both
judicial and administrative, as also the police officials involved in
the verification of the fabricated sureties in the present case.
We place on record our appreciation for Mr. Suryaprakash V.
Raju, learned A.S.G., Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel,
and Ms. Sana Hashmi, AOR, learned amici curiae, Mr. Shadan
Farasat, learned senior counsel, and all the other counsel who lent
their able assistance to them, and thereby, to this Court.
We may add that Mr. Sidharth Luthra, has laboured and
impressed upon us to direct the Rules (Annexure A-I) to be made
mandatory. We have extensively dealt with the same. Record
reveals that this Court has been continuously reposing immense
faith upon him and calling him to assist as amicus curiae in several
matters of great importance, including the Constitution Benches,
since the year 2010.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 141
33. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………..…J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
…………………………………....J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 17, 2026
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 142
ANNEXURE I
THE PROFESSIONAL BAIL BONDSPERSON (REGULATION)
RULES, 2026
OBJECTS AND AIMS
The National Legal Services Authority in exercise of its policy and
scheme making powers under Section 4(a) and 4(b) of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 is competent and with its nationwide
network is capable of giving effect to a scheme to reform and regulate
surety practices and to introduce a scheme for licencing and
registration of Professional Bail Bondsperson throughout India. The
core objectives of this Scheme are:
i. To institutionalise and regulate the role of professional bail
bondsperson in India, and create a formal, legally recognized
framework for professional bail bondsperson.
ii. To reduce incarceration post the order granting bail or
suspension of sentence to an accused, that occurs strictly due
to an accused's inability to furnish sureties.
iii. To ensure accountability, transparency, and professionalism in
all bail surety services provided to the accused by bail
bondsperson.
iv. To assist courts in the effective enforcement of bail or
suspension of sentence conditions, thereby ensuring the
accused's presence during proceedings.
v. To prevent the exploitation of accused persons and their families
by unregulated or unscrupulous actors providing sureties to
accused and curb the menace of fake sureties.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 143
CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY
1. Short Title, Extent, and Commencement .—
These Rules may be called the Professional Bail Bondsperson
(Regulation) Rules, 2026.
2. Definitions.—
(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires—
(a) “Bail” has the same meaning as in Sections 436, 437, 437A,
438 and 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) and
Sections 480, 481, 482, 483, 484 and 485 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) and “suspension of sentence”
has the same meaning as in Section 389 of CrPC and Section 430
of BNSS or in any special or local law for the time being in force in
India;
(b) “Bond Amount” and “surety amount" means the amount
fixed by the police officer or court for bail and surety or “suspension
of sentence”, in terms of Sections 88, 389, 437, 437A, 438, 439,
441 of CrPC and in any provision for the grant of bail, by a Court
or investigating officer, in any special or local law for the time being
in force in India [Sections 91, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485 and
487 of BNSS, 2023] and in any provision for the grant of bail or
“suspension of sentence”, by a Court or investigating officer,
including in any special or local law for the time being in force in
India;
(c) “District Legal Services Authority” shall mean the District
Authority constituted under Section 9 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987;
(d) “License” means a valid certificate granted under Chapter IV
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 144
of this Scheme to a “Bail Bondsperson” who is registered with the
State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory Authority;
(e) “National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)” shall mean the
Central Authority constituted under Section 3 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987;
(f) “Professional Bail Bondsperson” means any person registered
under Chapter IV to carry out the activities of services of providing
sureties for an accused and related activities as permitted under
Chapter IV;
(g) “State Legal Services Authority” shall mean the State
Authority constituted under Section 6 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987;
(h) “State Regulatory Authority” shall mean the State Bail
Bondsperson Regulatory Authority constituted under Rule 2 of this
Scheme.
2. Words and expressions used but not defined in these regulations shall
have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) or, as the context may
require, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”); the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) or, as the context may require, the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”); the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 (“BSA”) or, as the context may require, the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (“IEA”); and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
CHAPTER II: SUPERVISORY MECHANISM
3. Role of National Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services
Authorities.—
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 145
a) NALSA shall be the nodal body for policy guidance, standard -
setting, and training modules.
b) NALSA may issue model rules, ethical codes, and compliance
standards and conditions for grant of license under Rule 8, 10 and
11. Such conditions shall be consistent with the BNSS or any other
law for the time being in force in India.
c) National Legal Services Authority shall—
i. Frame Standard Operating Procedures.
ii. Maintain national digital infrastructure under the rules.
iii. Coordinate with State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs),
District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs), High Courts,
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), National
Informatics Centre (NIC), National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB) and State Police.
d) State Legal Services Authorities shall act as State Implementing
Authorities, and District Legal Services Authorities shall act as
District Verification Units.
CHAPTER III: STATE BAIL BONDSPERSON REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
4. Constitution of State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory Authority .—
(1) Each State Government and Union Territory Administration shall,
vide a notification, constitute a State Regulatory Authority
consisting of the following members—
i. A Chairperson being a person who has before his or her
retirement, worked as a Judge of the High Court, to be
nominated by the Chief Justice of concerned High Court;
ii. A Vice-Chairperson being a person who has before his or her
retirement from service, worked as a Sessions or Additional
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 146
Sessions Judge for at least 10 years in that State or Union
Territory, to be nominated by the Chief Justice of concerned
High Court;
iii. A police officer, nominated by the Director General of Police,
not below the rank of Inspector General of Police or officer of
equivalent rank in the State or Union Territory;
iv. A representative of the State Legal Services Authority, to be
nominated by the Chairperson of the State Legal Services
Authority;
v. A financial or compliance expert qualified and practising as
a Chartered Accountant who has at least 20 years of
experience in his field, and resides in that State/Union
Territory, to be nominated by the Chairperson of the State
Legal Services Authority; and
vi. Either a Social Worker with a minimum qualification of a
Master’s degree from a recognized University in India or
overseas in social work, clinical psychology, criminology; or
a Medical Doctor who has a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree
in Psychiatry from a recognized University in India or
overseas, and with at least 20 years of experience in his/her
field, and nominated by the Chairperson of the State Legal
Services Authority.
(2) The tenure, terms and conditions of appointment and all other
related matters shall be notified by NALSA in consultation with
the respective State Government.
5. Duties of the State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory Authority .— It
shall be the duty of the State Regulatory Authority to—
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 147
a) issue licenses to and register Individual Professional Bail
Bondsperson upon receiving an application in the prescribed
form in terms of Rule 10;
b) fix, modify, and publish the maximum service fees a
bondsperson can charge;
c) adjudicate complaints in connection with the duties and
responsibilities of bail bondsperson stipulated for them under
these Rules;
d) cause an annual forensic audit of the fiduciary and collateral
accounts of all licensed bondspersons under these Rules within
the State at a time and date as may be prescribed as part of
conditions of license; and
e) devise a mechanism, in consultation with the State Legal
Service Authority for ascertaining suitability of an applicant to
be a bail bondsperson.
CHAPTER IV: LICENSING AND REGISTRATION
6. Mandatory licensing and prohibition of unlicensed activity.—
a) No person shall act, advertise, or hold themselves out as a
professional bail bondsperson unless licensed under these Rules.
b) Any act of executing or soliciting a bail bond without a valid license
shall constitute an offence of cheating by personation and such
other offences as may be applicable and punishable under the
provisions of IPC or BNS and triable as per the provisions of CrPC
or BNSS.
7. Eligibility.— An individual applying to secure a license for Bail
Bondsperson under these Rules shall—
i. be a citizen of India;
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 148
ii. possess such educational qualifications and professional
competence as may be prescribed by the State Regulatory
Authority;
iii. be a solvent individual;
iv. be of sound mind; and
v. satisfy the Authority as to his or her integrity, reliability, and
fitness to act as a professional surety;
8. Disqualification.—The following persons shall not be entitled to
apply for license—
i. Serving police officers, Serving prison officers, Serving
judicial officers, Serving prosecutors, Serving court staff, or
any other person exercising control over prisoners as may be
prescribed by the NALSA;
ii. persons convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty,
moral turpitude, or with any offence punishable with
imprisonment of one year or more;
iii. persons whose license has been previously revoked under
these Rules; and
iv. any other person or category of persons as may be declared
to be unfit by the NALSA or State Legal Services Authority or
State Regulatory Authority by notification.
9. Procedure for making an application, examination and
disclosure.—
(1) Every individual applicant seeking a license under these
Regulations shall make an application to the State Regulatory
Authority constituted for the State in which the applicant
proposes to work as a professional bail bondsperson, in such
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 149
Form and with payment of such fee as may be prescribed, and
every such application shall be accompanied by—
i. proof of identity and proof of residence of the applicant,
established in such manner, and through such documents,
as may be prescribed;
ii. a Police Verification Report, not older than ninety days from
the date of the application, obtained from the jurisdictional
police in respect of both the permanent address and the
present address of the applicant, certifying inter alia that the
applicant has not been convicted of, and is not undergoing
trial in respect of any offence involving moral turpitude,
fraud, coercion, extortion or violence;
iii. a full disclosure of all direct or indirect financial interests, in
a manner prescribed by the State Regulatory Authority held
by the applicant exceeding such threshold as may be
prescribed, whether held in the applicant’s own name or in
the name of a spouse, dependant, nominee or other person
on the applicant’s behalf, together with a statement of the
source of each such interest; and
iv. such solvency certificate from respective bank, statement of
assets and liabilities, or return of income, as may be
prescribed, to enable the State Regulatory Authority to
assess the financial standing of the applicant.
Provided that—
i. the solvency certificate shall be signed and sealed by
the manager of the bank branch issuing the certificate
and countersigned by an officer not below the rank of
Regional Head or its equivalent,
ii. the State Regulatory Authority may, by general or
special order, require an applicant to furnish such
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 150
further information, document or clarification as it may
consider necessary for the proper disposal of the
application, and the application shall not be treated as
complete until such requirement is complied with.
(2) Any material misrepresentation made, or any suppression of a
material fact, in or in connection with an application under this
rule shall;
(a) where the license has not yet been granted, render the
application liable to rejection; or
(b) where a license has already been granted, render such
license liable to cancellation,
and shall, in either case and in addition, render the applicant liable
to criminal prosecution under the relevant provisions of the BNS.
Explanation— For the purposes of this sub-rule, a fact shall be deemed
to be “material” if its disclosure would reasonably have affected the
decision of the State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory Authority to grant, to
refuse, or to impose conditions upon, the license.
10. Registration.—
(1) Once compliance with the Regulations provided for herein is
established and verified along with other conditions as may be
prescribed by the State Regulatory Authority , such Authority shall
issue to each individual bail bondman a Unique Surety License
Number (USLN);
(2) Each Bail Bondsperson having USLN issued hereinunder, shall
provide such number in each surety form signed by them. Such
forms are enclosed as Annexure II.
11. Security bond, guarantee and fiduciary accounts.—
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 151
(1) Every Licensed Professional Bail Bondsperson must furnish and
maintain, in favour of the State Regulatory Authority, a continuous
Bank Guarantee or an insurance-backed instrument of a value of
which may be decided by the State Regulatory Authority in
consultation with the Chairperson of State Legal Services Authority
and in recognition of socio-economic conditions prevailing in the
State/Union territory; such guarantee or instrument shall remain
valid and subsisting, throughout the period of the license and for
such further period after the expiry, surrender or cancellation of
the license for the satisfaction of any subsisting liability, as may be
prescribed.
(2) All premiums, fees, collateral or other monies received by a
Licensed Professional Bail Bondsperson in connection with any
bail bond shall be held in a fiduciary capacity, in one or more
segregated accounts maintained with a scheduled bank exclusively
for that purpose, and shall not at any time be commingled with the
personal or business funds of the bondsperson.
(3) Every Licensed Professional Bail Bondsperson, shall execute and
file, along with every bail bond submitted to the Court, a
mandatory affidavit declaring that no illegal gratification, kickback,
commission or referral consideration has been paid, given, offered
or promised, directly or indirectly, to any police officer, jail or
prison authority, member of the staff of any Court, or legal
practitioner, in connection with the procurement, negotiation or
execution of the bond.
(4) Failure to furnish or to maintain the security required under sub-
rule (1), or to maintain the fiduciary accounts required under sub-
rule (2), shall render the license liable to suspension, without
prejudice to any other action that may be taken under these Rules.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 152
12. National Digital Surety Registry of Licensed Bail
Bondsperson.—
(1) National Legal Services Authority shall maintain a National Digital
Surety Registry containing:
i. Identity details of registered Bail Bondsperson under these
Rules;
ii. Details of the sureties furnished by the said bail
bondsperson;
iii. Instances of forfeiture or default;
iv. List of blacklisted or suspended Bail bondsperson.
(2) The information maintained in the Registry by the National Legal
Services Authority shall be made accessible to all Courts, and to
every State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory Authority, in such
manner and subject to such safeguards for the protection of
personal data as may be prescribed.
CHAPTER V: DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF BAIL BONDSPERSON
13. Duties of Professional Bail Bondsperson .—Every licensed
professional bail bondsperson shall—
(a) ensure the appearance of the accused before the court all dates
as may be required, and take all reasonable steps for that
purpose;
(b) explain the conditions of the bail to the accused in a language
understood by the accused, and obtain an acknowledgment to
that effect in the language of the accused and of which he/she
comprehends the meaning thereof;
(c) comply strictly with conditions imposed under the CrPC, BNSS
or any other special law that might be applicable and with every
direction issued by the Court;
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 153
(d) maintain accurate, contemporaneous, and verifiable records of
all bonds executed;
(e) maintain records of any expenses along with verifiable bills
incurred in performing duties accrued upon him;
(f) promptly inform the court and investigating agency of any
apprehended breach of bail conditions and of any change in the
circumstances of the accused that comes to the knowledge of
the bondsperson;
(g) at the time of executing any bond, the bondsperson must issue
a declaration that they have no familial, professional, or
financial conflict of interest with the presiding judge, the
prosecutor, or the investigating officer of the concerned police
station;
(h) any further duties that may be prescribed by National Legal
Services Authority, State Legal Services Authority or State
Regulatory Authority.
(i) not charge fees outside this authorised schedule.
Provided that this will not limit the bondsperson from taking
adequate or such security as deemed appropriate from the
accused or convict, to secure his or her control on the
accused seeking their services
14. Prohibited conduct of Professional Bail Bondsperson .—No bail
bondsperson shall—
i. detain, confine, or physically restrain any accused;
ii. impersonate or represent themselves as a public authority;
iii. solicit business within court premises or places of detention;
iv. offer or give any inducement, rebate, or consideration to
secure bail business;
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 154
v. recommend or influence the choice of advocate/legal
advisor;
vi. advertise in a false, misleading, or deceptive manner or
suggest governmental affiliation.
vii. execute aggregate outstanding bail bonds exceeding five
times the verified value of their solvency certificate or
financial assets.
Explanation— Any contravention of this rule shall constitute
misconduct, and shall be a ground for suspension or cancellation of
the license under Chapter VII, without prejudice to any criminal
liability that may be incurred.
15. Regulation of fees and premiums.—
a) No bail bondsperson shall charge or collect any fee, premium, or
service charge except in accordance with rates approved by the
State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory Authority and published in
such manner as may be prescribed.
b) The licensed bail bondsperson may hold an instrument or
property, in trust, in lieu of fees approved by the State Bail
Bondsperson Regulatory Authority, until the realisation of such
fees, but shall not deal with or dispose of such instrument or
property save for the purpose of such realisation after taking due
permission of the Court.
c) Every fee, premium or service charge shall be disclosed in writing
to the accused or the indemnitor prior to the execution of the bond,
and a receipt shall be issued in respect of every sum so received.
16. Collateral and security.—
a) Collateral accepted by a Bail Bondsperson or a Bail Bond Business
Entity shall be proportionate to the bond amount.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 155
b) Transfer of title of movable or immovable property as a condition
for bail is prohibited.
c) Collateral shall be held in trust and returned immediately upon
discharge or exoneration of the bond together with any document
of title or instrument deposited in connection therewith.
17. Liability, forfeiture and recovery.—
a) Forfeiture of bail bonds shall be governed by the provisions of the
BNSS or CrPC.
b) Any recovery from the accused or the indemnitor shall be limited
to the amount of the bond, together with such reasonable and
documented expenses as may have been actually and necessarily
incurred, and shall not include any penal or speculative charge.
CHAPTER VI: SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS
18. Special provisions for foreign nationals.—
a) No bail bond in respect of an accused of a non bailable offence,
who is a foreign national, shall be executed by a Licensed
Professional Bail Bondsperson save with the express permission of
the concerned Court accepting bail and surety bonds.
b) A bondsperson furnishing surety for a foreign national shall ensure
that the accused:
a) registers with the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer
(FRRO) within one week of release; and
b) deposits his/her passport with the Court.
c) Where a professional bond is issued in respect of an accused who
has been flagged as a flight risk, the FRRO shall be notified through
the portal so as to suspend the passport or other travel documents
of such accused, and to place him or her on a look-out circular,
thereby preventing cross-border escape.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 156
CHAPTER VII: SUSPENSION, CANCELLATION AND DISCIPLINARY
MECHANISM
19. Grounds for suspension or cancellation.—
a) A license may be suspended by the State Regulatory Authority if a
bondsperson commits fraud, engages in coercive practices, or
repeatedly incurs bond forfeitures;
b) Upon receipt of a complaint from an aggrieved accused or upon
intimation of irregularity from the concerned Court, the State Bail
Bondsperson Regulatory Authority shall issue a show-cause notice
to the erring bondsperson, suspending their license during the
pendency of the inquiry.
c) If a bail bondsperson suffers the suspension of their license on
three or more occasions, the State Regulatory Authority shall after
conducting comprehensive review of the instances for suspension
of license, if deemed fit, initiate processes for cancellation thereof.
20. Disciplinary Proceedings.—
a) State Regulatory Authority shall initiate an inquiry, with due
regard to the principles of natural justice, where it is alleged
that the bondsperson has committed fraud, misrepresentation,
or financial impropriety; engaged in coercive or unethical
practices; repeatedly incurred bond forfeitures; or violated court
directions or any Rules framed under these regulations.
b) Where a license has been suspended without hearing the
licensed bondsperson, the State Regulatory Authority must
conduct a mandatory review hearing within seven (7) days of the
suspension to evaluate the necessity of the continuation of the
suspension.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 157
c) Any disciplinary action taken against professional bondsperson
under this Chapter shall operate without prejudice to
concurrent criminal prosecution under the BNS, 2023
CHAPTER VIII: MAINTENEANCE OF RECORDS
21. Record-keeping.—Every Licensed Professional Bail Bondsperson
shall preserve all records, including copies of executed bonds, client
files and verification disclosures, at a secure place for such period as
may be prescribed, and shall be obliged to produce such records as
and when required under these Rules.
22. Audit and inspection.—The State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory
Authority may, through any officer authorised by it in this behalf,
conduct inspections and audits of any Licensed Professional Bail
Bondsperson, and every such bondsperson shall afford to the
authorised officer all reasonable facilities and access to records for
the purpose of such inspection or audit.
23. Regulation not in derogation of any other law.—The provisions
of this Regulation shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 158
SURETY BOND
IN THE COURT OF ____________________________
Case / FIR No.: ____________________
Police Station: ____________________
Offences under: ____________________
State vs. __________________________
I, _____________(full name of Surety as per Surety License), S/o / D/o /
W/o ___________, aged about ___ years, Permanent Address: ________,
Present Address: ______________, having Surety License No.:
________________, valid from ___ to ____ Mobile No.: ______________, Email
ID: ____________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. I offer myself as Surety for __________________________ (name and
particulars of the accused), who has been charged under
Section(s) __________________________, and who has been directed to be
released on bail vide order/judgment dated ____________ passed by the
Hon’ble ___________________ Court, upon furnishing bail bond in the
sum of Rs. ____________/ - (Rupees
______________only) with __________surety/sureties in the like
amount.
2. That my particulars are as under: -
a. Permanent Address: __________________________
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 159
b. Premium/Service Fee Charged: Rs. ____________/- (Conforming to
rates approved by the State Bail Bondsperson Regulatory Authority)
c. The Details of Collateral Accepted (Held in Trust):
Description of Instrument/Property: ______________________
Approximate Value: Rs. ____________/- (Proportionate to the court-
mandated bond amount)
d. Bank Account(s) details:
Name of Bank & Branch: __________________________
Account Type & last balance: __________________________
e. Details of all other case/s, where the Licensed Bondsperson
has stood surety:
i.
ii.
f. Whether any surety bond executed by me has ever been
forfeited:
☐ No ☐ Yes (details of accused, case no., court & amount):
______________
g. Whether any application for suretyship by me was rejected
earlier:
☐ No ☐ Yes (details of case no., court & amount along with reason
rejection):_________
h. Whether the I have been a party to insolvency/bankruptcy
proceedings:
☐ No ☐ Yes (details): __________________________
i. Whether the I have ever been accused/convicted in any
criminal case:
☐ No ☐ Yes (details): __________________________
m. Any other relevant particulars regarding income/assets:
_____________________
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 160
n. Documents Filed:
S. No.
Documents to be Furnished (Documents No.4 only
required when the accused is a foreign national)
1.
License issued under the Professional Bail Bondsperson
(Regulation) Rules, 2026
2. Aadhaar Card (along with Digi locker copy)
3.
Bank Account statement certified by concerned bank
manager (Scheduled Public Sector Banks, Scheduled Private
Sector Indian Banks and Cooperative bank or Regional Rural
Banks)
4.
Court Order granting permission to execute this Professional
Bond [Only applicable for Foreign National]
o. I declare that no illegal gratification or unauthorized consideration
outside the regulated fee structure in terms of the Professional Bail
Bondsperson (Regulation) Rules, 2026 has been exchanged for
standing as professional surety.
p. I declare that I have no familial, professional or financial conflict of
interest with the presiding judge, the prosecutor or the investigating
officer of the case in which the accused has been charged.
q. I shall ensure the presence of the accused before this Hon’ble Court as
and when required.
r. I undertake to immediately inform the Court if I learn that the accused
is attempting to abscond or is acting in violation of any bail
condition/s.
Cr. A No(s).____/2026@ SLP (Crl) No(s). 14185 of 2025 Page 161
s. I consent to verification of my identity, address, and financial capacity,
including bank accounts, fixed deposits, and property records.
t. I consent to the creation of lien for the surety amount on the money
instrument or property either immovable or movable, furnished by me
at the time of standing surety.
I hereby bind myself to the Government to pay the sum of Rs. ________/
(Rupees _________________only) in the event of forfeiture under Section
493 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Name & Signature of Surety)
VERIFICATION
Verified at ________ on this ___________ day of _______, that the contents
of the undertaking are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom, no part of it is untrue.
(Name & Signature of Surety)
Identified by:___________
Name & Signature of the Advocate:_________________________
Date:_____________
Place:____________
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....