Section 34. Penalty for impersonation at time of enrolment
Whoever impersonates or attempts to impersonate another person, whether dead or alive, real or imaginary, by providing any false demographic information or biometric information, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
How courts have applied section 34
- The provision is typically charged alongside BNS, IPC, Foreigners Act, and Passport Act offences, usually in bail matters where its application is not separately analysed in depth.1,2,3
- Bail is frequently refused where the alleged misuse of Aadhaar cards is linked to grave offences like those endangering sovereignty or involving forgery of property documents, and where investigation is incomplete.4,2,5
- Anticipatory or regular bail has been granted when the charge sheet is filed, custodial interrogation is not needed, and the accused is not named in the FIR or has parity with other accused.6,7,8
- A genuine compromise between the parties can support either bail or the quashing of the FIR in cases involving Section 34.9,10
- The provision operates prospectively, and a prosecution for an act preceding its enactment may be barred by Article 20(1).11
- Pending civil disputes and the failure of the accused to cooperate with investigation are relevant factors for courts deciding bail applications under this provision.12,5
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here involve Section 34 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 almost entirely in the context of bail applications, either regular or anticipatory, where the provision is charged alongside other offences, most commonly under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Indian Penal Code, the Foreigners Act, and the Passport Act. Courts in these orders have frequently decided whether to grant bail by weighing the gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the period of custody, rather than by conducting a detailed analysis of Section 34 itself. A recurring feature is that Section 34 is invoked in cases involving allegedly forged Aadhaar cards used for impersonation, often to facilitate illegal immigration or fraudulent property transactions.1,4,13,2,12,14,15,5
Grant of bail has been refused in several instances where the allegations were considered grave, such as where forged Aadhaar cards and other documents were allegedly used to help illegal immigrants obtain identity documents, where a person purportedly impersonated a property owner to execute fraudulent sale deeds, and where the investigation was at a crucial stage or the accused had not cooperated. Conversely, bail was granted where the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and no custodial interrogation was required, where there was parity with co-accused already granted bail, where a compromise had been reached between the parties, or where the period of custody already undergone outweighed the need for further detention. In one matter, anticipatory bail was refused due to gravity, but the petitioner was directed to surrender for a merits-based bail decision.1,2,5,4,6,8,9,10,13,15,16
Courts have also considered surrounding circumstances when deciding these bail pleas. The existence of a pending civil dispute between the parties was a factor in favour of granting anticipatory bail. The court held that penal statutes operate prospectively, so a prosecution for an act predating the enactment of Section 34 could violate Article 20(1), and that dishonest intent is indispensable for cheating and forgery offences. The utility of continuing proceedings after a genuine compromise had been verified was questioned, leading to quashing of an FIR in one case. One petition concerned the cancellation of duplicate Aadhaar cards allegedly involved in fraud, where the court directed investigation into the Aadhaar-manipulation aspect, invoking Sections 34 and 35.12,11,10,17
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 34
Regular bail refused under Section 483 BNSS 2023 to Bangladeshi national accused of channelling illegal immigrants for fake PAN and Aadhaar cards through cyber centre 'Wow Technology, U.K.';
DismissedOpenAP High Court Amaravati; Crl. Petn. 1665/2026; regular bail denied; forgery; impersonation; forged/morphed Aadhaar card; Special Power of Attorney/GPA; fraudulent sale deed; property grabbing; Paidipamula Lakshmi Kumari; Paidipamula Sandeep; Yella Jayalakshmi de facto complainant; Crime No. 210/2025 Kankipadu P.S.
DismissedOpenCRM (M) 1599 of 2026; bail application under S.483 BNSS 2023 / S.439 CrPC 1973; Kamal Chakraborty, Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Branch, public servant; Bhadreswar Police Station Case No. 462 of 2024 dated 23.11.2024; BNS 2023 Sections 316(2)/338/316(5)/318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) and 338/316(5);
DismissedOpenCRM (M) 359 of 2026; bail under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS granted by Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; accused Abhijit Halder; Bhadreswar PS case 462/2024 dated 23.11.2024; passport fraud on fake documents; BNS 2023 ss.318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2)/316(2)/338; Passport Act s.12(1)(b); Aadhaar Act ss.34/35/52;
AllowedOpenAllahabad High Court, Vivek Varma, J., order dated 12.8.2025 in CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. 2159 of 2025 (Arvind alias Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P.). Anticipatory bail allowed in Case Crime No.0627 of 2018, P.S.
Delhi High Court; BAIL APPLN. 4522/2025; Ranjan Kumar Yadav v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi; Neena Bansal Krishna, J.; order dated 24.11.2025; regular bail; Section 483 B.N.S.S.; withdrawal of bail application with liberty to file fresh application before Sessions Court; FIR No.0112/2025; PS New Friends Colony;
Show 6 more
Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 5554 of 2025; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; decided 20-06-2025. Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 sought by Arnab Mandal, accused no.1 in Crime No.500/2024, Suryanagar Police Station (committed and pending as CC No.885/2025); earlier bail rejection in Crl. Misc.
DismissedOpenHigh Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 2091 of 2025; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; anticipatory bail; Section 482 of BNS, 2023; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; Sections 335, 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2), 3(5) BNS 2023;
AllowedOpenPetitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging impersonation in Aadhaar enrollment for his brother. The court held the Aadhaar Act could not apply retrospectively to a 2014 act, and that mens rea was absent given the petitioner's consistent rectification efforts.
AllowedOpenRegular bail in a forgery/cheating FIR where the complainant had settled all disputes with the petitioner by compromise deed and a co-accused's quashing petition was pending. The court allowed bail, noting prolonged trial and no meaningful purpose in further custody.
AllowedOpenPetition to quash an FIR involving Aadhaar Act, Registration Act and IPC offences after parties reached a compromise verified as genuine by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Relying on established compromise-quashing principles, the High Court quashed the FIR qua the petitioner.
AllowedOpenRegular bail application by an accused nominated on a co-accused's disclosure statement in an FIR concerning a missing girl and alleged Aadhaar card changes. The Court found prima facie evidence but, considering custody duration and nature of allegations, granted bail subject to bond conditions.
AllowedOpen
Madras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.15863 of 2025 (M.Nirmal Kumar, J., 24.06.2025): anticipatory bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 granted to Sriram (A7) in Crime No.180 of 2025, Kundrathur Police Station, for harbouring/employing Bangladeshi nationals – charges under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 336, 337, 338, 61(1)(a) BNS,…
AllowedOpenANTICIPATORY BAIL - REJECTION OF PRAYER. The petitioner, apprehending arrest in Gandhimaidan P.S. Case No. 206 of 2024 (District Patna) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the Aadhar Act, sought pre-arrest bail.
DismissedOpenAccused in an impersonation and fraudulent property sale case sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS after the Sessions Court rejected her application. Considering allegations that she impersonated the property owner and forged identity documents yet to be recovered, the High Court dismissed the petition.
DismissedOpenJharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P. (Cr.) 1230 of 2023; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; 24.07.2024. Duplicate Aadhaar cards 424997140439 and 275291495679 in the name of one individual (Abhi Kumar @ Agindar Kumar Mandal); prayer for cancellation of Aadhaar cards; identity fraud, impersonation and misuse of Aadhaar;
DisposedOpenThe High Court of Orrisa considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Due to the gravity of the offences involving illegal trafficking and fake Aadhaar identity documents, the court refused anticipatory bail but directed the petitioner to surrender within three weeks to enable the lower…
DisposedOpenAllahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal J., 26.4.2023 — Anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. allowed in Case Crime No. 634 of 2018 (P.S. Civil Line, Muzaffar Nagar): fair price shop proprietors Usha Tayal, Gaurav Tayal, Abhijeet, Sunil Kumar accused of fudging BPL card details and interpolating Aadhaar Cards;
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma, J. allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Champa Devi @ Champa Rani and Manoj Kumar regarding charges under IPC and Acts related to ration black marketing. The court held that a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
AllowedOpenThe High Court issued anticipatory bail to four applicants accused of manipulating ration shop databases under sections related to forgery and IT laws. The court held that a case for bail was made out and granted release conditioned on furnishing bonds, non-interference with investigation, and appearance before the…
AllowedOpenIn an anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court held that a case for bail is made out. The court imposed standard conditions, including appearance before the trial court and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.
AllowedOpenThe Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner facing charges under the Foreigners Act, IPC, and Citizenship Act. The Court directed the petitioner to be confined in a Special Camp in Trichy until deportation orders or case disposal by competent authorities, emphasizing deportation over regular jail if not an…
AllowedOpen