In an unusual moment inside the Supreme Court, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria made a striking remark while hearing a criminal bail matter involving a foreign national accused of cheating and forgery.

The Court was dealing with a bail plea filed by a man claiming to be a citizen of Vanuatu, charged under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for cheating), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the accused, informed the Bench that his client hailed from Vanuatu. The response from the Bench immediately triggered curiosity.

“Have you been there? There is no country like that… This country is like Kailasa.”

The remark referred to the self-proclaimed micronation “Kailasa”, allegedly founded by fugitive godman Nithyananda — a comparison reflecting the Court’s skepticism regarding the accused’s claimed identity.

When asked further, counsel stated the country was “somewhere in the Caribbean”, which appeared to deepen the Bench’s doubts, as Vanuatu is actually located in the South Pacific Ocean.

During proceedings, the prosecution informed the Court that the accused had allegedly used multiple identities.

The Bench reacted with visible concern:

“We must consider research on this fellow.”

The statement indicated the Court’s apprehension regarding possible impersonation or identity manipulation — an increasingly common feature in cross-border financial fraud cases.

Bail Plea Withdrawn

Following the exchange and the Court’s observations, the accused chose to withdraw the bail plea.

No final ruling on merits was delivered, but the hearing highlighted judicial caution in cases involving foreign nationals and identity inconsistencies in economic offences.

The episode underscores three important legal realities:

Identity verification is central to bail adjudication — especially in cheating and forgery cases involving foreign nationals.
Courts are increasingly alert to transnational fraud networks, fake citizenship claims, and impersonation schemes.
The case reflects a broader judicial concern: bail cannot be considered in isolation from the accused’s traceability and accountability.

While the remark comparing Vanuatu to “Kailasa” came in a lighter vein, the underlying judicial reasoning was serious — credibility of identity directly affects flight-risk assessment, a critical factor in bail jurisprudence.

As digital fraud and cross-border scams grow, courts are clearly signaling that nationality claims must withstand strict scrutiny.