Locked up for 20 days on false charge

Bhadra Sinha / TNN / Jul 30, 2006, 01:14 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

The arrest under sections of forgery and impersonation came as a surprise to Vohra since he was travelling on a genuine passport.

NEW DELHI: The police cannot take away the "liberty of a person on the asking of someone", the Delhi High Court has ruled. While quashing a case of forgery against a man who was arrested at Mumbai airport on the basis of a disclosure statement, the court has held that there must be prima-facie evidence before the police arrests anyone.
The petitioner, Swapnil Chander Mohan Vohra, was arrested for allegedly travelling on a forged passport.Later, his passport was found to be genuine, a fact which even the Delhi Police admitted.
A person in Ahmedabad had claimed that he had sold his passport, but his statement did not even contain Vohra's name. "The police must ensure that he is suspect of a crime for which he is booked...
I am of the view that the liberty of a person is very precious and should not be taken away merely on the asking of someone," said Justice S N Aggarwal.

Vohra was apprehended at Mumbai Airport on January 31, 2006 after a look-out circular issued by the FRRO. He was returning from London where he had gone for his brother's treatment.
Vohra stayed in judicial custody for 20 days before he was granted bail on a surety of Rs 50,000. The arrest under sections of forgery and impersonation came as a surprise to Vohra since he was travelling on a genuine passport.
Vohra later learnt that his arrest was subsequent to the disclosure statement of a resident of Ahmedabad resident whose name surfaced after one Amba was arrested at IGI airport for travelling on a forged passport. The events leading to his arrest started in November last year.

Amba was arrested while he was going to New York. The passport that he was using was in the name of Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai. Amba claimed he had purchased the passport, along with the resident permit of Rs 13 lakh, from a travel agent.
While Amba gave names of three agents, the police, despite filing its final report before the court, could not arrest any of them.
The police also questioned Dhulabhai who admitted to having sold his passport and permit to two persons for just Rs 50,000. While he gave details of one buyer, he could not say anything about the other person, Sandeep.
When Vohra was arrested, the police claimed that he was Sandeep. Even before the court, the police said Vohra was Sandeep. Vohra argued that he did not know anyone named in the FIR.
His lawyer stated that his client's liberty had been curtailed without following the due process of law and for no fault of his.
Even as the police said they had filed a chargesheet against the accused, Justice Aggarwal took note of the evidence collected by the investigating officer.
He observed: "On going through the entire record of the case, I find that except disclosure statement of the persons mentioned, the prosecution could not collect any incriminating evidence that might connect the petitioner with the offence for which he was allegedly booked."

End of Article