Probe false sureties, bail bonds, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 5

Rapping a trial court for acting mechanically while accepting false sureties and bail bonds in a case allegedly involving fake invoices of Rs 393 crore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Ludhiana District and Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry.

Justice Deepak Sibal also directed the trial court, which accepted the bail bonds and sureties, to furnish its comments on the safeguards it took to record its “satisfaction” before ordering the release of the accused. For the purpose, Justice Sibal set a month’s deadline.

Justice Sibal asserted furnishing false sureties at the time of release of an accused on bail clearly amounted to interference in the administration of justice. It was a menace, which continued to be rampant despite issuance of directions by the High Court in December 2011 in the case of “Rajinder Kumar versus State of Haryana”. The same was required to be put to an end.

“Such inquiry, subject to following of Covid-19 protocols, be conducted at the earliest, in accordance with law and a report in this regard be furnished to this Court before the adjourned date,” Justice Sibal added.

The case has its genesis in an FIR registered by the police on a complaint filed by the tax authorities at Ludhiana, inter alia alleging that the petitioner, by creating 23 fake accounts, had raised fake invoices of Rs 393 crore. The petitioner was then nominated as an accused and arrested.

The trial court in January granted bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing of two sureties of Rs 1 crore, each along with a bank guarantee of Rs 50 lakh. The trial court accepted the same and ordered the petitioner’s release. It was later revealed that both the sureties, whose aadhaar cards were produced before the trial court, had actually not consented to stand sureties. They had also not provided documents regarding their properties, which were produced before the trial Court. Accordingly, an FIR for cheating, forgery and other offence was registered under Sections 170, 199, 200, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner.

His counsel contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated and had no role to play in the arrangement and production of the sureties, which were managed by his counsel. Before parting with the order, Justice Sibal stayed the petitioner’s arrest subject to his taking part and cooperating in the inquiry.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.