The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to a Chinese national accused of forging identity documents, illegally extending his visa, and engaging in activities allegedly threatening India’s economic interest. The Court observed that the applicant was found residing in India on forged documents and was allegedly involved in the extraction and export of processors and chips to China, raising concerns under economic offence jurisprudence.
The case involved the arrest of a Chinese national after two other Chinese citizens were detained while entering India through Nepal. Based on information provided during their interrogation, the present applicant was traced to a flat in Noida, where police allegedly recovered a forged passport and Aadhaar card issued in the name of an Indian identity. It was also found that his visa, valid only until 2020, had been tampered with and shown as extended till 2022.
Investigations further led the police to a hotel room in Gurgaon where several forged Aadhaar cards and other materials were recovered. Statements suggested that the applicant was indirectly running a company involved in collecting processors and chips from scrap material and sending them to China. Multiple witness statements also indicated that the applicant was handling the operations of certain companies and properties allegedly used for these activities.
The applicant’s counsel argued that he was neither a director nor a promoter of the companies named in the investigation and that he had been falsely implicated based solely on confessional statements and unsupported witness accounts. It was submitted that no material evidence directly linked the applicant to the alleged siphoning of money, and no charge sheet related to money laundering had been filed.
The counsel further contended that the applicant had already spent over three years in custody, that only a few witnesses had been examined out of many, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude early. Reliance was placed on Apex Court decisions holding that confessional statements alone cannot form the basis of prosecution and that foreign nationals may be granted bail subject to stringent conditions such as impounding of passports and obtaining assurance from the embassy.
Opposing bail, the State argued that the applicant was the kingpin of the entire operation involving illegal extraction of processors and chips, their export to China, and the use of forged documents. It was contended that the applicant had fabricated an Indian passport and Aadhaar card and had tampered with visa records, clearly indicating his involvement in serious illegal activities.
The State further submitted that the case fell within the scope of economic offences and that the applicant posed a significant flight risk, especially since India has no extradition treaty with China. It was highlighted that another co-accused had already fled the country and remained untraceable. The Union of India supported these submissions and emphasised the prevailing hostile relations between India and China.
The Court noted that searches conducted on the basis of information provided by the applicant resulted in the recovery of a forged passport, forged Aadhaar card, and evidence of visa tampering. The Court emphasised that the applicant was staying in India without a valid visa and had not offered any satisfactory explanation for possessing forged Indian identity documents.
The Court further observed, “There is material in the case diary which shows that the applicant was staying in India on the basis of forged passport and Aadhaar card and was involved in illegal extraction of mobile chips and processors and sending them to China. He is indirectly involved in economic offence as well as causing threat to the economic interest of India.”
Additionally, the Court highlighted the relevance of Section 57(11) of the Evidence Act regarding judicial notice of hostile relations between nations, noting, “This Court cannot ignore the relationship of India with China…and if the applicant is released on bail, he may leave the country illegally.”
The Court also took note of the absence of an extradition treaty with China, making it difficult to ensure the applicant’s presence if he absconded. Finding sufficient prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement in forging documents, tampering with visa records, and staying illegally in India to carry out activities falling within economic offences, the court rejected the bail application.
However, considering that the applicant had been in custody for over three and a half years, the court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: Xue Fei@ Koei Vs. Nil
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 1118 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Abhishek Chauhan, Amir Siddiqui, Naveen Prakash, Sumant Kumar Tiwari
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. G.A., R.P.S. Chauhan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
