AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order reserved on 22-11-2017 Order delivered on 05-01-2018 MCRC No. 3957 of 2017

1. Ved Prakash Gupta @ Gudda S/o Rajendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Polsai Para, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The District Magistrate, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Adiraj Surana & Shri Sangarsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra C A V Order

1. Albeit M.Cr.C. Nos.3957, 3959 and 4136 of 2017 were heard analogously on 22.11.2017, however, looking to the different nature of crime, facts, etc. these bail applications are being dealt with separately by passing individual orders.

2. The applicant has preferred this application filed under Section

439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No.51/2016 registered in Police Station Durg, District Durg, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant stood surety in the Court of Special Judge, Durg by impersonating Neelkanth, S/o Sukul Das, resident of village Indavani, however, when the concerned Court sent the papers for verification, the concerned Tahsildar submitted a report that no such person in the name of Neelkanth resides at village Indavani. Thereafter, the Court Mohrir Constable Parsh Nath lodged a report against the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In the inquiry it was found that the applicant is working as an Advocate's Clerk and has engaged himself in the fraudulent activity by standing surety by affixing his photograph in the property papers of other persons, one of which is Neelkanth, S/o Sukul Das.

4. In course of hearing, it was informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in almost every Court in the State forged sureties are produced to obtain bail on the basis of forged revenue papers or by impersonating the real surety. It is also argued that if this menace is not controlled and regulated it will attain enormous proportion, therefore, this Court must pass necessary orders directing trial Courts to ensure obtaining papers of identification at the time of approving surety documents for issuing release warrants.

5. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that some other lawyers present in the Court did not dispute this position that the practice of submission of forged revenue documents and sureties is rampant in trial Courts.

6. In Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and others¹, the Supreme Court was dealing with the challenge to the provisions contained in Section 139-AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 providing for mandatory seeding of Aadhaar numbers in PAN database. The

1 (2017) 7 SCC 59 Supreme Court took note of the object of the provision directing mandatory seeding to observe that unearthing black money or checking money laundering is to be achieved to whatever extent possible. Various measures can be taken in this behalf. If one of the measures is introduction of Aadhaar into the tax regime, it cannot be denounced only because of the reason that the purpose would not be achieved fully. Such kind of menace, which is deep rooted, needs to be tackled by taking multiple actions and those actions may be initiated at the same time. Rationality of a particular measure cannot be challenged on the ground that it has no nexus with the objective to be achieved. Individual measure cannot be ridiculed.

7. Highlighting the objectives of Aadhaar, it was further observed that by making use of the technology, a method is sought to be devised, in the form of Aadhaar, whereby identity of a person is ascertained in a flawless manner without giving any leeway to any individual to resort to dubious practices of showing multiple identities