Introduction:
In a landmark decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the verification of sureties through the MAADHAR application, aiming to eliminate the illegal and unethical practice of demanding money by those who authenticate sureties. The directive comes in response to growing concerns about the exploitation of individuals seeking surety verification in legal processes. The judgment was delivered by Justice Anoop Chitkara while granting pre-arrest bail to Pawan Jain, who was accused under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Arguments of Both Sides:
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Pawan Jain, the petitioner, moved the High Court for anticipatory bail after being accused under Sections 18(c) and 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The allegations against him included the sale and supply of e-cigarettes containing nicotine, which, according to the authorities, classify as drugs under the Act. Jain failed to produce a valid drug license and could not disclose the source of the nicotine-containing products during an inspection.
Jain’s counsel argued that the petitioner’s case under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), was maintainable despite the ongoing proclamation proceedings. They asserted that Jain had not been declared a proclaimed offender and had been asked to appear before the trial court, which he undertook to do. Furthermore, they informed the court that Jain had already challenged and succeeded in quashing the proclamation order through a High Court petition.
The defense emphasized that Jain was cooperating with the investigation and had legitimate grounds for seeking bail. They argued that denying pre-arrest bail would cause undue hardship, especially considering the quashing of the proclamation order.
State’s Arguments:
The State, represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, opposed the bail application, contending that the petition under Section 482 BNSS was not maintainable due to the proclamation proceedings against Jain. They highlighted that fresh proclamation warrants had been issued under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), directing Jain to appear in court on September 7.
The State’s counsel argued that the gravity of the allegations against Jain warranted custodial interrogation to uncover the extent of the illegal activities. They stressed that the sale of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes without a valid license posed significant public health risks and violated the Drugs and Cosmetics Act’s stringent regulatory framework.
Additionally, the State raised concerns about the potential for Jain to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if granted anticipatory bail. They urged the court to uphold the High Court’s earlier decision to deny pre-arrest bail and maintain the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the arguments from both sides, Justice Anoop Chitkara granted anticipatory bail to Pawan Jain. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair legal processes while addressing the broader issue of unethical practices in surety verification. In his ruling, Justice Chitkara highlighted the prevalent issue of individuals demanding money for surety verification and identified the need for a more authentic and foolproof verification method.
The court directed the use of the MAADHAR application for verifying sureties, stating that this digital tool provides a more reliable and ethical means of identification. The judge noted that verifying sureties through traditional methods often led to exploitation and financial burdens on individuals seeking verification. By using the MAADHAR application, the court aimed to eliminate the need for verification through intermediaries such as Lambardars, Nambardars, and ward members, thereby reducing fraudulent transactions and unethical practices.
Justice Chitkara further recommended that government officers adopt the MAADHAR application for verifying witnesses while registering power of attorneys, sale deeds, and other documents. This measure, the court suggested, would help curb fraudulent transactions and enhance the authenticity of legal processes.
In granting anticipatory bail to Jain, the court underscored the importance of maintaining the petitioner’s rights under Section 482 of the BNSS. The judge opined that, given Jain’s cooperation with the investigation and the quashing of the proclamation order, the petitioner had established a case for bail. The court imposed conditions under Sections 485(4), 486, 491, and 492 of the BNSS to ensure compliance and prevent any potential tampering with the investigation.
The court also addressed the issue of furnishing sureties, acknowledging that individuals might face financial difficulties in meeting surety requirements. Justice Chitkara directed that if an accused is unable to furnish surety, the concerned officer or court should have the discretion to reduce the bond amount or even exempt the surety bond, provided the inability is satisfactorily demonstrated.