Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held that mandating a local surety as a condition for bail violates fundamental rights and discriminates against individuals based on residence. The Court quashed criminal proceedings in Gurugram under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused from Kolkata, who had been alleged to furnish forged surety documents during bail proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Finding no fraudulent intent or conspiratorial nexus, the Court held that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process, while proceedings against co-accused shall continue.

The matter before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arose from proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the petitioners, residents of Kolkata and former directors of a finance company, sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them. The dispute stemmed from their appearance in Gurugram in connection with cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Also Read: Supreme Court Grants Limited Stay on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | Halts Enforcement of Key Provisions, Protects Property Possession Pending Tribunal Decisions

In compliance with court directions, the petitioners furnished personal bonds for bail. Their local counsel advised them to secure sureties from within the jurisdiction, leading to the introduction of two individuals, Hari Singh and Yashpal Singh, as sureties. Documents, including Aadhaar cards, were submitted to the trial court. On verification, the documents were found to be forged, and the sureties admitted they had no personal acquaintance with the petitioners, stating that the documents had been prepared by a third person, Santosh.

The trial court took cognizance of the forgery, permitted the petitioners to furnish fresh personal bonds, and directed the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register a case against the sureties. Subsequently, an FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was carried out, and a chargesheet was filed.

The petitioners contended that they had no role in preparing or submitting the forged documents, derived no benefit from them, and relied solely on their counsel’s assurances. They further argued that the trial court itself recognized their bona fides by allowing them to furnish fresh bonds. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the forged documents had been submitted in connection with bail and that conspiracy could be inferred from the circumstances.

Justice Goel recorded that the plight of accused persons compelled to arrange local sureties remains an “anachronism that flies in the face of Constitutional principles.” The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Moti Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1978), where the apex court condemned the insistence on local sureties as a discriminatory practice. The judgment quoted, “What is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamilian or Andhra to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgaam or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know anyone there… Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies.”

The court further referred to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, observing, “One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/convicts is the insistence upon surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety.” Justice Goel recorded that the continued insistence on local sureties leads to “precarious and, at times, unethical arrangements” where accused persons are compelled to secure strangers as sureties through counsel.

The High Court observed that the offences alleged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC are all predicated on the existence of mens rea, which was absent in the present case. It was stated, “A perusal of the record unequivocally reveals a conspicuous absence of any mens rea that could be legitimately imputed to the petitioners.” The court stated that the trial court itself had permitted the petitioners to furnish fresh bonds, thereby acknowledging their bona fides. It recorded, “Taking into consideration these attending circumstances emerging from the records of the case, it is indubitably clear that the petitioners cannot be said to be complicit in the offences forming the subject matter of the FIR.”

Also Read: Punjab and Haryana High Court | Compulsory Retirement of District Judge Quashed Under Punjab Civil Services Rules | Adverse ACR Remarks by Former Administrative Judge Found Unsubstantiated

Regarding the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, the court observed, “Upon a careful consideration of the nature of the allegations, the attendant circumstances, and the specific roles ascribed to the petitioners, it becomes patently clear that they cannot be held complicit in the commission of the offences enumerated in the FIR in question.” The judgment stated that the material on record pointed to “a complete disconnect between the petitioners’ actions and any pre-arranged unlawful purpose.”

The court issued its directions: “The impugned FIR No.2636 dated 14.12.2023 registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioners. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case regarding the non-petitioning co-accused, and it is clarified that proceedings against the said co-accused shall continue in accordance with law.”

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana

Case Title: Sumit Sharma and another v. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:128529
Case Number: CRM-M-6979-2024
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel