-
by sayum
14 January 2026 9:43 AM
“Allegations Touching National Integrity, Safety and Security Demand Deeper Scrutiny — Anticipatory Bail Would Jeopardize Investigative Process”, Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, dismissed Criminal Appeal , affirming the rejection of anticipatory bail to Dr. Abdul Ghaffar, who is alleged to be the kingpin of a syndicate illegally assisting Rohingya and Bangladeshi immigrants through fraudulent documents, foreign funds, and hawala transactions.
The Court, while refusing to interfere with the Special Judge NIA Court’s order dated 19.11.2025, declared: “Since the allegations levelled against the appellant are very serious in nature relating to the security, safety, integrity, harmony and peace of the country… we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.”
This judgment was rendered under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, rejecting anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 370 of the IPC, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 12(1) & 12(2) of the Passport Act, all registered under Case Crime No.12/2023, ATS Gomtinagar, Lucknow.
“Custodial Interrogation Is Qualitatively Different — Anticipatory Bail Would Obstruct Investigation of Deep-Rooted Conspiracy”
The Court underscored the need for custodial interrogation in cases where national security and organized syndicates are involved, drawing reliance from the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157. The Bench noted:
“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438… Effective interrogation of the suspect is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information.”
The Bench made it abundantly clear that anticipatory bail, if granted in such matters, would defeat the very purpose of investigation and allow the accused to potentially influence the evidence or witnesses.
“Anticipatory bail to accused in cases of the present nature would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing of the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence.”
“Non-Filing of Chargesheet Not Sufficient Ground for Bail When Investigation Is Ongoing and Evidence Points to Involvement”
Although seven charge sheets had been filed against co-accused individuals and no charge sheet had yet been filed against Dr. Ghaffar, the Court refused to treat this as a mitigating circumstance. Instead, it reiterated that the investigation was ongoing and evidence, including FSL reports, surveillance materials, and case diary entries, indicated the active role of the appellant.
“Mere non-filing of charge sheet against the appellant is not a ground for anticipatory bail where investigation is ongoing and material suggests involvement.”
The Court observed that bank transactions of the Sun Shine Health and Social Welfare Society, allegedly run by the appellant, showed financial links to Rohingya individuals, with funds being used for constructing settlements for illegal immigrants, thereby raising grave national security concerns.
“Abscondence and Non-Cooperation Are Material Factors — Setting Aside of Proclamation on Technical Grounds Does Not Erase Allegations”
Despite the proclamation under Section 82/83 CrPC being set aside on technical grounds by a separate order dated 11.12.2025, the Court held that such procedural reversals do not neutralize the fact of abscondence. The Bench was not impressed by the appellant’s claim of willingness to cooperate now.
“Despite knowing that the investigation is going on… the present appellant did not appear before the Investigating Agency… Allegations are based on credible material collected by the agency, and there might be possibility of custodial interrogation.”
The Court noted that non-bailable warrants had been issued on 13.03.2024 and 13.02.2025, and the appellant had failed to submit to the investigation despite this.
“Investigating Agency’s Lapses Do Not Override Gravity of Offence — Court Expresses Displeasure at Agency’s Delays”
Interestingly, while refusing anticipatory bail, the Court did not shy away from reprimanding the investigating agency for its lax approach in the case. The Bench recorded its “serious displeasure and anguish” over the failure of the Investigating Officer to seek search warrants of the appellant’s society premises and not acting promptly after the earlier remand order.
“We put on record our serious displeasure and anguish on the callous and careless approach of the Investigating Agency… This fact must come to the notice of the Chief Secretary of U.P., Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Principal Secretary to CM, and Director General of Police.”
A direction was issued to the Court Registry to forward a copy of this order to senior state officials within three working days.
“Delay in Arrest Not Enough to Grant Bail in Matters of National Security”
The appellant had relied on precedents such as Asha Dubey v. State of M.P. and Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that since there was delay in arrest, bail should be granted. The Court squarely distinguished those precedents, stating:
“In the present case, the allegations are so serious… The benefit of the aforesaid order may not be extended to the present appellant as he has not been arrested in the last more than two years, despite coercive steps having been taken.”
Similarly, reliance on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, was also rejected, with the Court noting that “presumption of innocence” does not bar custodial interrogation in a case with strong prima facie material.
Conclusion: Anticipatory Bail Refused — Appellant Directed to Surrender and Cooperate
While dismissing the criminal appeal at the admission stage, the High Court left liberty open for the appellant to seek regular bail if arrested, but stressed that it would be the subjective satisfaction of the Investigating Agency whether to arrest or not.
“It is absolutely up to the Investigating Agency/ Officer to take custody of the appellant, if his custodial interrogation is required… If the appellant is taken into judicial custody, he may file regular bail which shall be decided as per law.”
The Court ensured that its observations do not interfere with the ongoing investigation or potential trial and clarified that sensitive materials shown to the Court were deliberately not reproduced, to preserve the integrity of the investigation.
Date of Decision: January 9, 2026
