S. N. AGGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 630/2005 under Section 419/420/468/471 IPC Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi qua him. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 21. 11. 2005 one Sh. Amba Lal S/o Sh. Tribhuwan Das was apprehended at IGI Airport, New Delhi while going to New York on the strength of a passport in the name of one Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai. The said Amba Lal who was apprehended stated in his disclosure statement that the passport in question was procured by him from a travel agent Rahul Bhai for consideration of Rs. 13 lacs. Amba Lal further stated in his disclosure statement that he had met travel agent Rahul Bhai through one Sumit Patel. Though the chargesheet has been filed but the Police could not reach till date either Rahul Bhai or Sumit Patel. ( 3 ) THE passport recovered from passenger Amba Lal was of Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai and on the basis of his address mentioned in the passport, the Police contacted the said person Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai at Ahmedabad and recorded his statement but he in his statement disclosed that he has sold his passport in question alongwith resident permit to Sandeep and Tarun Dahaya Bhai Patel for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/ -. Though particulars of Tarun Dahaya Bhai Patel were given in the disclosure statement of Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai but neither the parentage nor the address of the petitioner was given in his statement. The name of the petitioner is Swapnil Chander Mohan Vohra and not Sandeep. It is alleged that the petitioner is also known by the name of Sandeep. After recording the statement of Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai, the Police also recorded the statement of his son Devender Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai who in his statement stated that his father has sold his passport and resident permit to Tarun Bhai and Sandeep in his presence. ( 4 ) ON the basis of disclosure statement of Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai and his son, the petitioner was suspected of the offence alleged to had been committed by him for which IO SI B. S. Gulia requested the FRRO to open a Look Out Circular in the name of the petitioner which in fact was opened on 13. 01. 2006. 01. 2006. The petitioner while returning from London after treatment of his brother who had suffered serious injuries in four fingers of his left arm was apprehended at Mumbai Airport and was arrested on 31. 01. 2006. He was granted bail after 20 days on condition that he should surrender his passport and should not leave India without prior permission of the Court. The petitioner has further asked to execute bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- while he was admitted to bail in FIR in question sought to be quashed qua petitioner. ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he does not know any person either by the name of Amba Lal, Tarun Dahaya Bhai Patel, Rahul Bhai or Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai or any such persons whose names have been disclosed in the disclosure statements of various persons mentioned above. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without due process of law for no fault on his part. The learned counsel has further contended that the Court can not act upon the disclosure statement of a co-accused. ( 6 ) THE learned standing counsel for the State has brought it to my notice that the charge-sheet in the case has already been filed which shows that the investigation in the matter is now complete at least in so far as it relates to the petitioner. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed pursuant to directions of the learned ACMM, Delhi. ( 7 ) ON going through the entire record of the case, I find that except disclosure statement of the persons mentioned here-in-above, the prosecution could not collect any incriminating evidence that might connect the petitioner with the offence for which he was allegedly 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. The Police before arresting any person must ensure that he is suspect of crime for which he is booked on the basis of some prima-facie evidence against him. In the present case what I have found is that the passport in question recovered from the possession of passenger Amba Lal was allegedly sold by Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai for a consideration of Rs. In the present case what I have found is that the passport in question recovered from the possession of passenger Amba Lal was allegedly sold by Narsingh Bhai Dhulabhai for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- whereas the passenger Amba Lal alleges that he had purchased the passport and resident permit for a consideration of Rs. 13 lacs. The petitioner who seeks quashing of FIR in question against him had traveled to see his injured brother to London on the basis of a genuine passport and at the time he was apprehended at Mumbai Airport on 31. 01. 2006, his passport found from him was genuine as per prosecution own case. ( 8 ) IN view of the above facts, I am of the view that even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value to be proved, still the petitioner can not be convicted for the offence for which he has been booked. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the FIR No. 630/2005 under Section 419/420/468/471 IPC Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi in so far as it relates to the petitioner is quashed and consequent thereto the order dated 10. 03. 2006 passed by the ACMM, Delhi is also set aside. This writ petition is disposed of.