During the hearing on the bail plea in a cheating case in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the court mentioned Vanuatu and ‘Kailasa’. The accused claimed he was a citizen of Vanuatu, to which the Supreme Court commented that “there is no such country.

New Delhi: During the hearing of his bail plea in a fraud case in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the accused claimed that he is a citizen of Vanuatu. Commenting on this, the court said that there is no such country as Kailasha. Along with this, while rejecting the petition, the court made it clear that accuracy is necessary to allow bail.

What was the matter?

The accused was in jail in a fraud case in West Bengal and after not getting bail from the Calcutta High Court, he moved the Supreme Court. The accused claimed that he was a citizen of Vanuatu and therefore should be granted bail. The Supreme Court bench—comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice A. V. Anjariya—asked the accused if he had been to Vanuatu.

The accused’s lawyer said that he never went there. On this, Justice Sandeep Mehta said jokingly, there is no such country. We also know about a country like Kailasa. It’s the same. Kailasha is a purported Hindu state founded in 2019 by fugitive Indian guru Nityananda. It has not been recognized by any international organization or country.

vanuatu country information

Vanuatu is located in the South Pacific Ocean. It extends to the east of Australia and north-east of New Caledonia. Vanuatu is a chain of 80 islands, formerly known as the New Hebrides.

• Independence: from France and Britain in 1980








• Capital: Port Vila








• Population: Around 3 lakh by October 2023








• Geography: Rich in hills and rain forests, active volcanoes on some islands

Vanuatu is a de facto, recognized country, while Kailasha is only a perceived nation.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the petition?

The accused’s lawyer claimed in the Supreme Court that bail has already been granted in four other cases against him. Despite this, the bench asked the counsel for the West Bengal government about the time limit for the trial. The government lawyer said that the trial will be completed in 6 to 8 months. On this the accused’s lawyer sought permission to withdraw the petition. The bench said that the petition is dismissed due to withdrawal.

The Supreme Court made it clear that there must be legal and factual basis for bail. Claiming any so-called or self-proclaimed nation does not work in court. The Court used the examples of Vanuatu and Kailasha to send a strong message on the validity of bail claims.