Miss Chayapha Thongphun @ Darin Chakthanapat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10087 of 2025

¶3

Miss Chayapha Thongphun @ Darin Chakthanapat

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Mohd Agha Haider Rizvi, Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶11

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 21.08.2025, one Thai national, Ms. Darin Chokthanpat (applicant), holder of Passport No. AD 2175735, was intercepted by the Immigration officials at Lucknow Airport while attempting to depart for Thailand by Air India Express Flight IX-106. On verification, it was found that she had earlier entered India on 29.07.2024 under a different identity, Thongphun Chayapha, on Passport No. AC 4874944. She was subsequently blacklisted for visa violations but was permitted to leave India on 17.03.2025 on an exit permit.

¶12

On interrogation, the applicant disclosed that one Jasvinder Singh had facilitated her in obtaining a fake passport in the name of Darin Chokthanpat with forged parentage, and that she had re-entered India through Raxaul on 31.07.2025, thereafter residing illegally at the house of Jasvinder Singh in Sarojininagar, Lucknow.

¶13

It is further alleged that this information was shared with FRO Lucknow, D.C.P. Intelligence, and A.D.G. Intelligence, U.P. on 13.08.2025. The matter was thereafter forwarded to D.C.P. South and S.H.O., Police Station Sarojininagar, where the applicant and Jasvinder Singh were questioned on

¶14

BAIL No. 10087 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

20.08.2025. However, without proper inquiry or registration of an FIR, the applicant was allowed to exit India. Being blacklisted, she was again intercepted at CCSI Airport, Lucknow by Immigration authorities.

¶17

It has further been alleged that Jasvinder Singh, with the help of Navendu Mittal and Shuvendu Nigam, arranged multiple fake Thai passports for the applicant and facilitated her illegal entry into India via Raxaul. Three passport numbers were found to be interconnected. Consequently, a request was made for registration of a formal FIR under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Immigration Act, and Foreigners Act against the aforesaid four accused persons.

¶18

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that none of the three passports referred to in the prosecution case and alleged to belong to the applicant are forged. All three are genuine documents bearing the same original identification number.

¶19

It is further submitted that the applicant had lawfully changed her name through a valid legal process. She has not entered India illegally but on the strength of a duly issued visa, which remained valid from 22.07.2025 to 31.10.2025.

¶20

Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused, Jasvinder Singh, who was alleged to have facilitated the applicant, has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8987 of 2025.

¶21

It has also been urged that the counter affidavit filed by the State today does not disclose any new material indicating that the applicant had committed any act of forgery. No meaningful investigation has been carried out by the Investigating Officer with respect to the other two co-accused persons, namely, Navendu Mittal and Shivendu Nigam. This fact has not been disputed by the learned A.G.A. during the course of arguments. At the most, the alleged act may attract the penal provisions under Sections 14(b) and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which prescribe a minimum punishment of two years, extendable up to eight years.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant further prays that the applicant may be

¶23

BAIL No. 10087 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

permitted to inform the competent authorities regarding the expiry of her visa during her detention so that no coercive action is initiated against her for any alleged violation of visa norms.

¶26

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶27

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the bail application, submitting that with respect to the three seized passports, the Investigating Officer has already requested the higher authorities to verify their authenticity from the authorities in Thailand, and such communication has been brought on record along with the counter affidavit.

¶28

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the applicant is a lady; the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate; there is no material to show that she has any previous criminal antecedents; she was residing in India on a valid visa; and she is in custody since 22.08.2025 and also considering the undertaking of the applicant to cooperate in the investigation and the trial, if required, the Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶29

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶30

Let the applicant Miss Chayapha Thongphun @ Darin Chakthanapat involved in Crime No. 279/2025, U/S338/336(3)/336(4)/340(2)/318(4)/61(2) B.N.S. (erstwhile Sections 467/468/469/471/420/120B IPC) & Section 14(B)/14(C) of Foreigners Act, 1946 PS- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶31

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶32

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶34

BAIL No. 10087 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶37

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶38

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶39

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶40

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶41

As the visa of the applicant has expired during the pendency of the present bail application, therefore, the Investigating Officer is directed to inform the competent authority regarding the fact that the applicant’s visa expired during her detention period.

¶42

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶43

October 28, 2025 R.C.

¶44

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Miss Chayapha Thongphun @ Darin Chakthanapat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Chayapha Thongphun @ Darin Chakthanapat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Tarun Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anuj Singh Rajawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munna @ Shoaib @ Mohammad Shoaib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Janki Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.