Hostile Indo-China Relations, No Extradition Treaty Can't Be Ignored: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Chinese National In Visa Forgery Case

The Allahabad High Court while denying bail to a Chinese National accused of tampering visa, illegally staying and committing economic offences has observed that the hostile relation between the two countries and no extradition policy cannot be ignored.

The Court was considering a Bail Application filed by the Applicant booked under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 14(A), 14(B), 14(C), 14AB and 14C of the Foreigners Act and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held, "....This Court cannot ignore the relationship of India with China by overlooking the mandate of Section 57(11) of Evidence Act and there are chances if the applicant is released on bail, he may leave the country illegally as another co-accused Tansong Dorji has already left and still untraceable. One more fact is relevant that India and China has no extradition treaty, therefore, if the applicant left the country illegally it would not be possible to bring back him to the justice...."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Abhishek Chauhan, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution's case, two Chinese nationals while entering into India through Nepal, were arrested by the Indian Police, and on the basis of information received from them, the present Applicant was arrested. During the search, one forged passport and an Aadhar card of the Applicant was also recovered. It was also found that the Applicant, by committing forgery in his visa, extended its validity from 2020 to 2022, and it was also found that a flat was taken on rent on the basis of the forged document through an agreement executed between HTZN Pvt. Ltd. and its owner.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is neither the director nor promoter of HTZN Technology Pvt. Ltd., Tianshang Renjian Pvt. Ltd. or any subsidiary thereof and merely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused as well as statements of some other witnesses, he has been falsely implicated as the person who is looking after entire business of companies allegedly involved in collecting chips and processors and sending it to China and after illegally earning money and siphoning off the same through crypto currency but, except the statement of some witnesses, there is no material evidence to show that the applicant was directly involvement either in transferring money or running the said company. 

It was further submitted that the Applicant is in jail since June 2022 and till date, out of total 76 witnesses, nine witnesses have been examined, therefore, trial will take time to conclude and the applicant cannot be kept in jail till the conclusion of trial despite the fact that there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of trial.

It was also submitted that the charge sheet has not been filed for the allegation that the applicant has siphoned off money or involved in money laundering in any manner. The Counsel argued that there is also no evidence that the Applicant has committed forgery in his visa as well as in preparing forged Aadhar card and Passport of Indian nationality.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the main allegation against the present applicant is that he has prepared forged Passport, forged Aadhar card and committed tampering in the validity of his visa and staying illegally in India.

"It is also clear from the statement of several witnesses that it is the applicant who himself went to the port courier office to export the packets containing chips and processors to China without any valid permission, Therefore, it is clear that there is material in the case diary which shows that the applicant was staying in India on the basis of forged passport and aadhar card and involved in illegal extraction of mobile chips and processors and sending them to China and he is indirectly involved in economic offence as well as the causing threat to the economic interest of India. As on date, the applicant has no valid visa to stay in India and there is no proper explanation why the applicant was having forged Indian passport, aadhar card and forged visa", the Court observed.

It noted that the hostile relation between the two countries and no extradition policy cannot be ignored and thus the Applicant can't be granted the relief sought.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Xue Fei@ Koei v. Nil (2025:AHC:207283)

Appearances:

Applicant- Advocates Abhishek Chauhan, Amir Siddiqui, Naveen Prakash and Sumant Kumar Tiwari

Respondent- Government Advocate, Advocate R.P.S. Chauhan

Click here to read/ download Order