New Delhi: From mandatory registration with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to depositing their passport with the court where the trial is pending, the Supreme Court has put in place a uniform framework to grant bail to foreign nationals in drug cases to ensure they do not abscond.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh underlined the need for a systemic examination of how bail is granted to foreign nationals, particularly the verification of sureties. It therefore invoked its power under Article 142 and issued the directions.
The court’s extensive judgement was delivered Monday while deciding the Union of India’s appeal against a May 2025 Bombay High Court order, granting bail to a Nigerian, Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara, who was arrested in March 2023. He was taken into custody following the arrest of his accomplice at the Mumbai airport, who was found to be in possession of more than almost 5 kg of heroin. The drug consignment, it was alleged, was meant for Nawchara.
While hearing the Centre’s appeal, the top court learnt that Nawchara was untraceable. What disturbed the court was that the person who stood surety for him too was not available at the address provided. Besides, the employer whose details were given to the court, denied ever employing the surety. His bank account details furnished too did not exist.
This led the court to a much larger concern—if the surety itself is fictitious, then the entire mechanism to secure the accused in the court becomes meaningless. On further enquiry, the court learnt that foreign nationals had absconded in numerous cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act after furnishing apparently fake sureties.
It laid out a 13-point mechanism which would require both the court and police to undertake a strict verification process to determine the surety’s genuineness. The existing mechanism, the court felt, lacked uniformity and was inadequate and defeated the purpose of bail conditions.
The court said a foreign undertrial must deposit the passport with the jurisdictional court, which may also restrict travel outside India without prior permission. Upon release on bail, the foreign national would now have to register with the FRRO within a week and inform both the investigating officer and the court in writing about it.
To facilitate this registration, the Supreme Court directed the FRRO to consult with the relevant government departments and create a portal for it.
The judgement said that a foreigner should ordinarily arrange for two sureties. But, conscious that a foreign national may face genuine difficulty in arranging two Indian sureties due to lack of a family connection, the judgement left it to the court’s discretion to relax the two-surety requirement. The bench said that if the accused is able to convince the court that despite sufficient efforts it was difficult or impossible to get two sureties, the court may relax the requirement, but only through a written order, giving reasons for the same.
The court and police are mandated to verify the sureties within three days of them being furnished. The verification report must reach the trial court before the accused is released. If the police are unable to meet the deadline to complete the verification process, they must inform the court and give reasons for it in writing.
Inquiry if a surety is found to be fake
In a direction to fix accountability, the Supreme Court said that in case the surety is later found to be fake despite the verification, then police, court and revenue officials involved in the process must face departmental inquiry for dereliction of duty. For this, it asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and state governments to issue guidelines for action against erring officials.
The judgement makes it compulsory for the police to carry out a physical verification of the accused’s address and contact details within three days of the bail order and before their release. This exercise must be done notwithstanding the police inspection that must have been done during the investigation.
When granted bail, the foreign accused must file an affidavit disclosing source of income/funds in India, and details of all Indian bank accounts, if any. The judgement authorises the investigating officer to inform the accused’s embassy, in writing, about the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence. The court granting bail can also create a lien equal to the surety-bound amount on the surety’s property, including an immovable property. This lien can be realised in case foreign national accused violates the bail condition.
To strengthen the process further, the SC bench asked the Ministry of Law and Justice to create a central database to maintain a record of foreign nationals who are facing prosecution in NDPS cases and also of those who stand sureties for them.
Similarly, all High Courts were directed to work towards creating a digital portal for speedy verification and authentication of property and financial documents of sureties. The court further suggested insertion of a Form 47A, a bail-bond and surety form, in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to strengthen the surety framework and disclosure.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Pills in a chapati cutter: Delhi bust puts focus on Captagon, superhuman ‘jihadi drug’ of West Asia