1

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.

2

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 others ¹, 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

3

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