Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
Ryen @ Ren Chao – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.59258 of 2022
Decided on : 31-07-2024
FOREIGN NATIONALS - BAIL APPLICATION - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 IPC; Sections 14(A), 14(B), 14(C), 14 of Foreigners Act; Section 66D IT Act - The court discussed the rights of foreign nationals under the Constitution of India, particularly focusing on the right to a fair trial and the right to seek bail. It emphasized that while foreign nationals are entitled to fundamental rights, their bail applications must consider the gravity of the offences, flight risk, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court highlighted the lack of an extradition treaty with China, which complicates the enforcement of bail conditions and the applicant's potential flight risk. The court ultimately concluded that the applicant posed a significant flight risk and dismissed the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a Chinese national, was arrested in connection with a series of economic offences involving fraudulent visa extensions and identity document forgery. He was charged under various sections of the IPC, the Foreigners Act, and the IT Act. The applicant had overstayed his visa and was implicated in a larger international crime network operating in India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found substantial evidence against the applicant, indicating his involvement in serious economic crimes and a likelihood of reoffending. The applicant's role in a larger organized crime network and the potential threat to national security were significant factors in the court's analysis.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the applicant posed a flight risk, the gravity of the offences committed, and the implications of granting bail to a foreign national without an extradition treaty with his home country.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the likelihood of the applicant fleeing the jurisdiction of Indian courts, combined with the serious nature of the charges against him, justified the denial of bail. The court emphasized the need for a careful assessment of flight risk, especially for foreign nationals, and the importance of ensuring that the applicant would not evade justice.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, with the court ordering that the applicant remain in custody due to the high risk of flight and the serious nature of the charges against him.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:
| I | Introduction | ||
|
|
| A | The accused |
|
|
| B | F.I.R |
|
|
| C | Investigations |
| II | Submissions of learned counsels for the parties | ||
| III | Rights of Foreign Nationals: | ||
|
|
| A | Constitution of India |
|
|
| B | Right to fair trial |
|
|
| C | Right to seek bail : Considerations |
| IV | Merits: | ||
|
|
| A | Likelihood of the applicant committing the offence and material against him |
|
|
| B | Gravity of the offence & impact on society |
|
|
| C | Likelihood of the applicant reoffending |
| V | Flight Risk and Foreign Nationals : | ||
|
|
| A | System of sureties |
|
|
| B | Coercive jurisdiction of Courts |
|
|
| C | Stand of Government of India and State Government |
|
|
| D | Applicant as a flight risk : Assessment |
| VI | Conclusion | ||
I. Introduction :
I-A. The accused:
2. The accused in the instant case is a Chinese national who is facing trial in Case Crime No. 408 of 2022 at Police Station Beta-2, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 IPC and Section 14(A), 14(B), 14(C), 14 of Foreigners Act and Section 66D IT Act. The applicant is in jail since 09.07.2022.
3. This is the first bail application filed by the aforesaid Chinese national before this Court. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court on 07.11.2022.
I-B. FIR:
4. The gravamen of the prosecution case as set out in the FIR is that reports of tampering of E-FRRO reports and fraudulent Visa extensions came to the notice of police authorities. Raids conducted at Taj Hotel led to recovery of various items including a BMW car, Aadhar Cards, ATM Cards, laptops, mobile phones and passports. Subsequent raids during the investigations at a flat in J.P. Greens yielded incriminating articles namely fake Aadhar Cards and Passports. A Chinese national by the name of XUE-FEI @ Koei was arrested and questioned. XUE-FEI @ Koei had forged his identity papers with the collaboration of his business associate Ravi Kumar Natwarlal Thakkar. Police interrogation of Pete Khrienuo @ Pette disclosed that she had assisted XUE-FEI @ Koei and two other Chinese nationals to illegally obtain false IDs’ like voter card, Aadhar card from Nagaland. She had facilitated the illegal entry of two Chinese nationals into the country and also travelled with them and Xue-Fei @ Koei to various places in India. She had purchased Indian sim cards on her ID.
I-C. Investigations:
5. The applicant was not named in the FIR. However during the course of investigations, the police authorities unearthed several incriminatory evidences against the applicant which according to them establish the culpability of the applicant in various offences.
II. Submissions of learned counsels for the parties:
6. Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel and Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant made the following submissions.
ii. No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant. The stamp pad in the name of the applicant recovered from the factory premises in the name of the applicant at the pointing out of the co-accused was not used for any fraudulent transaction. Travel tickets which were recovered from the applicant do not connect the applicant with any offence.
iii. The applicant was nominated in the statement of co-accused Ashu Kumar and Pradeep Kumar while in custody of police authorities. The only offence against the applicant (without prejudice to his defence) is that of overstaying the
The court established that foreign nationals facing criminal charges in India are entitled to fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial and bail, but these rights must be balanced again....
Foreign nationals, especially undertrials, should not be detained without due process of law. The competent authority should consider alternative options under Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act, suc....
Bail conditions must not be excessively onerous, as this equates to a refusal of bail, violating the principles of justice, especially for foreign nationals under Article 21.
The court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to direct visa issuance in bail proceedings, emphasizing the distinction between judicial custody and executive detention under the Foreigners Act.
The court reinforced that bail conditions for foreign nationals accused of serious crimes must prioritize the integrity of the judicial process and the risk of flight.
Bail conditions for foreign nationals must respect personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot lead to indefinite detention without legal backing.
(1) Bail – When trial gets prolonged, it is not open to prosecution to oppose bail of accused-undertrial on the ground that charges are very serious – Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that ch....
The dropping of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the appellant and the principles of speedy trial and personal liberty were central legal points established in the judgm....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
