5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Feb 4, 2026 11:04 AM IST
Delhi High Court News: While dismissing an anticipatory bail plea in a case involving forged travel documents and the facilitation of illegal foreign travel, the Delhi High Court said that illegal migration through “forged documents” is not merely a private dispute, but it affects the country’s standing in the “international community”.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing a plea of a man, accused of acting as a key facilitator in an organised racket involving forged travel documents and the facilitation of illegal foreign travel.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Delhi High Court Sandeepa Virk
“Illegal migration through forged documents is not a matter confined to a private dispute between individuals,” the order said.
The court added that such conduct exposes those involved to serious risks and carries the potential to adversely affect the country’s standing in the international community.
Findings
- The disclosure statements of the co-accused persons consistently point towards the existence of a well-coordinated network of agents operating across jurisdictions.
- After the failure to secure employment abroad, the illegal route to the USA was planned through multiple countries using forged documents.
- The petitioner is not peripheral at this stage; rather, he is alleged to have acted as a link between different agents, facilitated contacts, and enabled the arrangement of a fake Schengen visa through intermediaries.
- The conduct of the petitioner during the course of the investigation is a relevant factor that cannot be ignored while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail.
- Despite the service of notices, the petitioner did not choose to join the investigation.
- Raids conducted at his residence revealed that he was not available, ultimately leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants.
- In cases involving organised crime and cross-border operations, custodial interrogation often becomes essential to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy.
- Also takes note of the seriousness of the allegations and their broader societal impact.
Background
- The petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail in case under Sections 336(3) (forgery), 340(2) (Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine), and 318(4) (cheating to dishonestly induce property or security delivery is punishable with imprisonment and fine) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 12 (offences and penalties) of the Passport Act, 1967.
- The case originated when a passenger arrived from the USA by Flight and, during immigration clearance, tampering was found in his passport.
- A Schengen visa affixed therein was also found to be counterfeit, as verified by the airline liaison officer, pursuant to which the FIR was registered.
- During the course of the investigation, the accused disclosed that after an unsuccessful attempt to find employment in Italy in November 2024, he planned to go to the USA and, for that purpose, contacted the petitioner, who belonged to his village.
- It was alleged that a deal for Rs 35 lakhs was finalised, which was paid by the father of the passenger to the petitioner.
- He further stated that on the petitioner’s directions, he contacted one agent, who arranged a fake Schengen visa by tampering with his passport.
- This enabled him to travel through Spain, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras to Mexico, from where he attempted illegal entry into the USA in December 2024 and was apprehended by the US authorities.
- During the course of the investigation, the co-accused agent was arrested in November 2025.
- The co-accused had disclosed that the petitioner had contacted him to arrange the journey and a fake visa for a consideration of Rs 15 lakhs, part of which was further routed to other agents.
Arguments
- Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta submitted that the case against the petitioner rests entirely on disclosure statements of the co-accused, which have no independent evidentiary value and cannot justify custodial interrogation or denial of bail.
- He further argued that even as per the prosecution’s version, the petitioner was not alleged to have forged any document, arranged any fake visa, or received any money; at best, it is alleged that he advised a co-accused to contact another agent.
- Additional Public Prosecutor, Manoj Pant, opposed the bail application and argued that the case pertained to an organised racket involving the use of forged travel documents and illegal facilitation of foreign travel, having serious international implications.
- He further submitted that the petitioner is a crucial link in the conspiracy, who connected the main accused with other agents for arranging a fake Schengen visa, and the disclosure statements read with the CDRs prima facie show his active coordination with the co-accused.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
