The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for a mechanism to help courts identify persons who repeatedly stand as sureties despite their antecedents being known. The suggestion came after Justice Sanjay Vashisth expressed concern over a case in which a person was found to have impersonated someone else while appearing as a surety.The court observed that such cases unnecessarily compelled the State machinery and police to secure the presence of accused, who absconded after being released on bail, besides causing avoidable delay in court proceedings.Justice Vashisth observed once it was established that a person appearing as a surety had impersonated the actual individual whom he claimed to be, the continued acceptance of such persons as sureties by district courts required serious attention.“Before parting with this order, this court deems it appropriate to observe that, once it is found that a particular person, who has appeared as a surety, has impersonated the actual person for whom he has projected himself, why recurrence of their sureties are accepted by the concerned District Courts,” Justice Vashisth observed.Going into the details, Justice Vashisth noted that certain persons repeatedly appeared as sureties in different courts of the same area/district, despite their antecedents being known, “thereby creating unnecessary complications”.Justice Vashisth observed that such a practice unnecessarily burdened the state machinery and police whenever an accused released on bail absconded, besides causing avoidable delay in court proceedings. “In cases, where the accused, after being released on bail, absconds, the State machinery and police officials are unnecessarily compelled to undertake efforts for securing their presence, besides causing avoidable delay in the proceedings before the Courts,” Justice Vashisth observed.The court further recorded: “It is generally noticed that such sureties and identifiers are known to the members of the Court staff and other stakeholders.” In view of the concerns, Justice Vashisth suggested that an effective mechanism be devised by the Sessions Judge of the division concerned for sharing the identity particulars of such persons among Magistrate Courts where bail bonds were furnished and sureties were identified.“Therefore, some effective mechanism may be evolved by Sessions Judge of the concerned Division, for maintaining and circulating the identity particulars of such persons, wherever permissible in law, amongst the Magistrate Courts, where bail bonds are furnished and sureties are required to be identified,” the court directed.Justice Vashisth also asked the Director of Prosecution, Haryana, to examine the suggestion so that an appropriate mechanism permissible under law could be evolved and Public Prosecutors informed accordingly.“Let this suggestion be examined by the Director of Prosecution, Haryana, and thereafter, an appropriate mechanism, permissible under law, may be evolved and the concerned Public Prosecutors be also apprised accordingly,” the order states.The court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Sessions Judge, Ambala, and the Director of Prosecution, Haryana, “for information and necessary action/compliance.”