P&H HC Denies Second Bail To Man Accused Of Using Forged Passport In Bid To Flee India, Citing No Material Change

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences including forgery and use of a forged passport.

The prosecution alleged that, while on parole, he procured a passport using forged documents and a false address and attempted to leave India to evade the law.

The petitioner had been in custody since 8 December 2025; the challan had been presented and charges framed, but none of the 12 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined.

His earlier regular-bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 19 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner’s antecedents, and the risk of absconding or influencing witnesses.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the regular-bail application.

In deciding bail, the court considers, among other factors, the prima facie case, the nature and gravity of the charge, the likely punishment, the risk of absconding or reoffending, the accused’s character and antecedents, the possibility of witness-tampering, and the risk of justice being thwarted, as set out in State through C.B.I. v. Amarmani Tripathi.

The court also applied the principle that a successive bail application requires a substantial, material, or supervening change in circumstances; continued custody alone does not automatically warrant reconsideration.

Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and another, 2024:PHHC:054064.

The Court treated the alleged procurement of a forged passport and attempted departure from India as serious conduct, noting that the petitioner was allegedly its direct beneficiary and intended to evade the legal process.

It considered his criminal antecedents relevant to the risk of repeated conduct and misuse of bail, and found that concerns about interference with the trial were not wholly unfounded.

Although the petitioner had spent approximately six additional months in custody after withdrawal of his earlier bail petition, the Court found no other material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a fresh grant of bail.

It directed that its observations and recorded submissions would not affect the merits of the case, and that the investigating agency and trial court should proceed in accordance with law.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.