Chinese National Gets Bail Conditions Modified After Embassy Refuses to Issue Guarantee Certificate in CGST Case
The Allahabad High Court modified two bail conditions for a Chinese national in a CGST tax-evasion case after China's Embassy declined to issue a guarantee certificate, and the FRRO granted her an X-Misc. visa valid until October 2026.
Justice Samit Gopal, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 14 July 2026 allowed a modification application filed on behalf of Alice Lee @ Li Tengli, a Chinese national facing trial under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court had originally granted her bail on 9 February 2026 subject to, among other conditions, a requirement that she file a guarantee certificate from the Chinese Embassy in India. After the Embassy formally refused to issue such a certificate, and after the FRRO Delhi granted her an X-Misc. visa — a category specifically designed for foreign nationals facing criminal proceedings — the court replaced the Embassy-guarantee condition with a personal undertaking and reshaped the condition governing her stay and movements.
The Arrest and the CGST Case
Alice Lee @ Li Tengli has been in custody since 26 August 2025. A complaint was filed on 17 October 2025 by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Gautam Budh Nagar against her, three other individuals, and M/s Tentech LED Display Private Ltd. The allegation is that the company, engaged in manufacturing Visual Display Units at Greater Noida, had shifted its manufacturing activity to an undeclared premises at Plot No. 99, Block A, Ecotech-VI, Greater Noida, and had been mis-declaring its finished goods as “cabinet” rather than Visual Display Units to attract a lower GST rate of 18 per cent instead of the applicable 28 per cent. The short payment on that count alone, calculated for financial years 2019-20 to 2024-25, was assessed at Rs. 88,80,751.
The case is registered as Case No. 40 of 2025 under Sections 132(1)(d), 132(1)(e), 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(l) of the CGST Act, 2017 at Police Station CGST Commissionerate, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The offences are triable by a Magistrate and carry a maximum sentence of five years.
During investigation, a letter of appointment recovered from the company showed that Alice Lee had been appointed to its security department only from 21 February 2024 at a fixed salary of Rs. 15,000 per month. Her husband, Xu Xunfu, had earlier filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 369 of 2025 before the Supreme Court challenging her arrest. The Supreme Court, by order dated 22 September 2025, disposed of that petition without declaring the arrest illegal and directed the applicant to seek bail before the court concerned, adding that the bail application should be decided expeditiously on its own merits.
The Bail Grant and the Embassy Condition
The bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came before Justice Samit Gopal. The court noted several factors in the applicant's favour: the offences are triable by a Magistrate; the maximum sentence is five years; the prosecution case rests entirely on documentary evidence; co-accused Vinay Kumar had already been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench on 1 December 2025; and the applicant is a woman with a child aged about three years. On 9 February 2026, bail was granted.
Because the applicant is a Chinese national whose visa had expired, the court was conscious of the flight risk. To address that, condition no. 15(vii) required her to file a certificate from the Chinese Embassy in India guaranteeing her appearance before the trial court on every date. Condition no. 15(viii) required her not to leave the country without the trial court's permission, to inform the trial court through her Embassy of her place of stay and movements once every two months, and to undertake to keep the trial court informed of her whereabouts. Despite the bail order, Alice Lee had remained in jail since she could not satisfy these conditions.
The Embassy's Refusal and the Visa Development
On 19 March 2026, the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in India wrote formally to the concerned parties. The Embassy stated that “in accordance with its functions and powers of the consular responsibilities, the Embassy is unable to issue such relevant guarantee certificate.” The letter was signed by Sun Weiwei, Third Secretary, Consular Section.
Separately, Alice Lee applied for a visa on 9 April 2026. The FRRO Delhi granted her an X-Misc. visa on 29 April 2026, valid until 28 October 2026, with the remark “No Departure Allowed Without Exit Permit.” The FRRO's communication to the court explained that an X-Misc. visa is granted to foreign nationals involved in criminal cases who are subsequently released on bail and whose presence is required to attend court proceedings. No other activity — employment, business, or otherwise — is permitted on this visa category.
On the visa front, the court had earlier, at the 13 January 2026 stage, itself raised the question of whether the applicant held a valid visa, since her release without a valid visa would raise questions about her lawful stay. The Union of India had then placed a nine-page Status Report before the court detailing the procedure for granting X-Misc. visas under the Immigration and Foreigners Order 2025 and the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 10 December 2025, which updated the earlier guidelines issued by the Bureau of Immigration vide Office Memorandum dated 2 March 2023. Under the December 2025 guidelines, the FRRO may grant X-Misc. visas to undertrial foreign nationals after due procedure and prior approval of the Bureau of Immigration.
The Court's Reasoning on Modification
Justice Samit Gopal considered three facts together: the applicant's genuine efforts to comply with the original conditions; the Embassy's categorical refusal to issue a guarantee certificate; and the fact that since the bail order of 9 February 2026, the applicant had remained in jail because compliance was impossible. To these he added the subsequent development that an X-Misc. visa — which itself carries the restriction of no departure without an exit permit — had been granted to her.
The court held that in these circumstances, condition no. 15(vii) could be modified. The requirement of an Embassy guarantee certificate was replaced with a personal undertaking to be filed by the applicant before the trial court, stating that she would appear on each and every date without fail and co-operate with the trial proceedings for their early conclusion. This approach preserved the substantive aim of the original condition — securing her attendance — without insisting on a mechanism that a foreign sovereign had declined to operate.
Condition no. 15(viii) was also modified. The requirement of informing the trial court through the Embassy was dropped. Instead, the applicant must not leave the country without the permission of the trial court, and after her release she must file an affidavit once every two months before the trial court disclosing her place of stay and movements within the country or State. The rest of the bail conditions, including the personal bond and surety requirements and the conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, were left unchanged.
Direction on Citation Practice
Before closing the modification application, the court reproduced and reiterated a direction it had issued in the original bail order of 9 February 2026. The court had observed that the counter-affidavit filed by the CGST officer, and separately the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Bail Application No. 5278 of 2025, had each mentioned the names of the judges of the Supreme Court benches while citing judgments. The court directed that naming judges when citing judgments is “totally uncalled for” and that only the names of the parties, the date of decision, citation details, and the relevant text need to be quoted. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the original order to the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, the court concerned, and the Director General, CGST Commissionerate, Gurugram for further transmission to the officer who filed the counter-affidavit.
Outcome
The Criminal Misc. Modification Application No. 5 of 2026 was allowed on 14 July 2026. Condition no. 15(vii) of the bail order dated 9 February 2026 was modified: Alice Lee @ Li Tengli must file a personal undertaking before the trial court to appear on every date and co-operate with the trial. Condition no. 15(viii) was modified: she must not leave India without the trial court's permission and must file an affidavit once every two months informing the trial court of her place of stay and movements. All other bail conditions remain in force. Having held an X-Misc. visa since 29 April 2026 valid until 28 October 2026 with a no-departure restriction, the applicant is now in a position to seek release from the Meerut district jail where she has been held since 26 August 2025.