Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava on Friday (January 9, 2026) declined anticipatory bail to an accused-appellant alleged to be the main organiser of a syndicate accused of extending illegal and unwarranted assistance to Bangladeshi, Rohingya and other persons described as anti-national, facilitating their settlement in India and creation of unrest and disharmony. The Bench refused to interfere with the earlier denial of pre-arrest protection and directed that its order be brought to the notice of senior state authorities, after recording “serious displeasure and anguish” at the investigating agency’s failure to take appropriate steps to apprehend the accused despite the alleged offences. The Court granted liberty to appear before the investigating officer within a week and cooperate, leaving any custodial interrogation to the agency’s assessment.

The criminal appeal arose from the rejection of an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused in a case registered by the Anti-Terrorism Squad, Lucknow. The FIR alleged offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, impersonation, forgery, use of forged documents, trafficking, and violations under the Foreigners Act and the Passport Act. The appellant was named among multiple accused persons, with some alleged to have direct involvement and others implicated on suspicion.

Also Read: Supreme Court Asks Union Government To Consider “Romeo–Juliet” Exception In POCSO Act To Shield Consensual Adolescent Relationships From Criminal Prosecution

During the course of investigation, several charge sheets were filed against co-accused persons, who were subsequently arrested and granted regular bail. No charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Non-bailable warrants were issued against him on two occasions, followed by a proclamation order, which was later set aside by the High Court in separate proceedings.

The appellant contended that no effective investigative steps had been taken against him despite the seriousness of allegations, including the failure to search the office premises of an organisation allegedly linked to him. He asserted willingness to cooperate with the investigation and argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The State opposed the appeal, alleging that the appellant was a key conspirator involved in illegal financial transactions, including foreign funding, to facilitate settlement of unauthorized foreign nationals in India. The prosecution relied upon supplementary case diary materials, intercepted communications, and forensic reports to oppose anticipatory bail.

The Court examined the rival submissions and the material produced during the hearing, including extracts from the case diary. While considering the conduct of the investigating agency, the Bench recorded serious concern regarding lapses in investigation.

The Court noted that “when culpability of the present appellant came to the notice before lodging the impugned FIR, as to why serious efforts have not been taken by the Investigating Officer(s) to apprehend the appellant as the allegations are so serious related to the safety and security of the country”.

It recorded dissatisfaction with the explanation offered, observing that “the Investigating Officer could not explain the reason as to why he did not file any appropriate application seeking search warrant against the official premises of the appellant where he might have received/collected relevant materials/evidences”.

The Bench further recorded that “the Investigating Officer could not explain any cogent reason as to why he has not filed any appropriate application before the learned Court concerned after the order dated 11.12.2025”.

Expressing institutional concern, the Court stated: “We put on record our serious displeasure and anguish on the callous and careless approach of the Investigating Agency, particularly the Investigating Officer(s)”. It further observed that the alleged offences were such that “the security, safety, peace and harmony of the country may likely be jeopardized”.

On the issue of anticipatory bail, the Court observed that “this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail when the allegations are serious, credible evidences and materials are being collected by the investigating agency”.

It also recorded that “there might be possibility of custodial interrogation of the appellant” and clarified that “principles of grant of anticipatory bail substantially differ from the principles of grant of regular bail”.

The Court dismissed the criminal appeal at the admission stage and “without interfering the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow rejecting Anticipatory Bail Application”.

The appellant was granted liberty “to appear before the Investigating Officer concerned at the earliest, preferably within a week after receipt of this order” and was directed “to cooperate in the investigation and to provide all relevant materials/evidences, which are within his possession or knowledge”. The appellant “shall continue to cooperate in the investigation till its conclusion and filing of the police report, if any”.

The Bench clarified that “it is absolutely upto the Investigating Agency/Officer to take custody of the appellant, if his custodial interrogation is required” and that such custody would depend upon “the absolute subjective satisfaction of the Investigating Agency/Officer”.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Issues Show-Cause Notice To Additional Chief Secretary (Home) For Repeated Non-Compliance With Its Order

“In case the present appellant is taken into judicial custody for the purposes of custodial interrogation, he may file his regular bail application before the competent court of law”, and that “the same may be decided strictly in accordance with law providing proper opportunity of hearing to the prosecution but with expedition”.

Separately, the Registry was directed “to provide copy of this order” to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Chief Minister, and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, “within three working days on the top priority basis for compliance”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Sri Purnendu Chakravarti, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Azizullah Khan and Ms. Aishwarya Saxena

For the Respondents: Sri S.N. Tilhari, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Dr. Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC-LK0:1806-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4153 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava