Evan V


The Supreme Court of India is set to consider an amicus curiae proposal for a regulated framework that would permit the execution of bail bonds by licensed “professional bail bondsmen”, with a view to addressing recurring instances of forged/impersonated sureties and of accused persons absconding after release on bail.

The development arises from a petition filed by the Union of India challenging the bail granted by the Bombay High Court to a Nigerian national, Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, in an NDPS matter, in which he is alleged to have absconded after securing release and to have furnished a fake surety. The Union alleges that approximately 4.9 kg of heroin was recovered from the accused and contends that the High Court did not adequately consider that the accused had been earlier convicted for a similar nature of offence. The Supreme Court had issued notice on May 5, 2025 and subsequently stayed the operation of the bail order.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice A G Masih is hearing the matter. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra has been appointed as amicus curiae to propose systemic safeguards to prevent recurrence of such situations, particularly where sureties are found to be fictitious or impersonated.

The amicus has proposed draft “Professional Bail Bondsmen(Regulation) Rules, 2026”, under which the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) would act as the governing authority. The framework envisages the creation and maintenance of a National Digital Surety Registry, including entries capturing defaults.

Also Read: Unreasoned Bail Orders Impermissible: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Bail In Dowry Death Case, Calls It “One Of The Most Shocking And Disappointing Orders

Under the proposed regime:

• Licences may be granted to individuals or business entities (including LLPs/companies/partnership firms), subject to demonstrable financial solvency.

• Certain categories would be ineligible—such as police and prison personnel, judicial officers, prosecutors, advocates, and persons convicted for fraud/dishonesty and allied disqualifying conduct.

• Applicants must be Indian citizens aged at least 30 years, clear police verification, and pass a qualifying examination testing knowledge of bail jurisprudence and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

To mitigate misuse and ensure accountability, the draft rules propose:

• Segregated fiduciary accounts for premiums/fees/collateral.

• A security bond/bank guarantee/insurance-backed instrument in favour of the State as a licensing condition.

• Fees chargeable only in accordance with rates approved by the Authority, with mandatory written disclosure prior to execution of the bond.

• An express prohibition on transfer of title to movable/immovable property as a bail condition, with collateral required to be proportionate and returned immediately upon discharge/exoneration.

The suggested framework requires licensed bondsmen to:

• Secure the accused’s appearance on all dates.

• Explain bail conditions in a language understood by the accused.

• Maintain accurate records; and

• Promptly inform courts of any apprehended breach.

It also prohibits coercive conduct, including detention, confinement, or physical restraint, and bars impersonation of public authorities, solicitation within court premises or detention centres, inducements, interference with choice of counsel, and misleading advertisements.

Recognising enforcement and verification challenges in cases involving foreign accused, the draft provides that bail bonds should not be executed for foreign nationals without the court's express permission. Courts may impose heightened conditions, including passport deposit, territorial restrictions, periodic reporting, higher bond amounts, or bank guarantees.

The framework also contemplates coordination with the Bureau of Immigration, Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs.

Licences may be suspended/cancelled for fraud, financial impropriety, coercive or unethical conduct, repeated forfeitures, or breach of court directions, with serious violations potentially attracting prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Also Read: Proper Section 18 Notice Under Assam Land & Revenue Regulation Mandatory Before Evicting Illegal Occupants From Government Land: Gauhati High Court

Apart from introducing professional bondsmen, the amicus has suggested operational directions such as:

• Mandatory passport deposit with the investigating agency/court and restriction on travel without trial court permission;

• Physical verification of sureties (through jurisdictional police) in NDPS cases involving foreign nationals prior to release;

• Mandatory requirement of two sureties for foreign nationals; and

• Verification of the accused’s Indian address before release.

The amicus submissions indicate that surety impersonation is not sporadic but systemic, referring to a 2021 order in Rajesh Kumar Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the issue of “rampant” impersonation of sureties was flagged, later leading to a suo motu matter titled In Re: The Problem of Impersonation of Sureties, stated to be pending.

The materials also refer to alleged organised rackets across States that furnish forged identity documents, recycle property papers, and produce impersonators as sureties. The Allahabad High Court has been cited as observing that “a parallel network” of fake sureties and forged bonds has emerged at the district court level.

The amicus has also evaluated suggestions made by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), including denial of bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases for foreign nationals, two-surety conditions, passport deposit, electronic surveillance (including GPS tagging), Look Out Circulars, and database integration.

However, the submissions caution that blanket measures may raise issues under Articles 14 and 21, for instance: blanket denial of bail undermining the presumption of innocence; mechanical two-surety requirements that do not cure verification failures; and round-the-clock surveillance/travel restraints requiring constitutional and proportionality scrutiny.

At the same time, certain measures are supported in principle—such as real-time digital authentication of surety documents, structured intimation to FRROs/embassies in foreign national cases, accountability for mechanical verification, and a centralised digital dashboard for tracking such matters.

The matter is listed for hearing on February 19. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra is assisted by Advocate Sheezan Hasmi and Mihir Joshi. Advocate on Record is Sana Hashmi.

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA vs. CHIDIEBERE KINGSLEY NAWCHARA

Case No: SLP(Crl) No. 014185 - / 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice A G Masih