The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Dr. Abdul Ghaffar, an accused in a case involving an alleged syndicate facilitating illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya intruders. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava expressed “serious displeasure and anguish” at the Investigating Agency’s failure to apprehend the appellant despite serious allegations concerning national security.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The appeal challenged the order dated November 19, 2025, passed by the Special Judge, NIA/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, which had rejected the appellant’s anticipatory bail application in Case Crime No. 12 of 2023.
The appellant faces charges under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 12(1) & 12(2) of the Passport Act.
Background and Allegations
The FIR, lodged on October 11, 2023, by the ATS Gomtinagar, Lucknow, named ten accused persons. The appellant, Dr. Abdul Ghaffar, was named at serial number 9.
According to the prosecution, the NIA/ATS received inputs in October 2021 regarding a syndicate involving “so-called respected persons” managing the settlement of Rohingyas and illegal Bangladeshi nationals in India. The prosecution alleged that the accused created a syndicate, opened various bank accounts, and utilized “Hawala transactions from other countries to extend help to intruders.”
The State contended that surveillance revealed the appellant was in contact with co-accused Abdul Awwal and others involved in anti-national activities. An FSL report received on February 2, 2024, reportedly confirmed these conversations.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions: Senior Advocate Sri Purnendu Chakravarti, representing the appellant, argued that:
- Seven charge sheets have been filed against co-accused persons between January 2024 and February 2025, but no charge sheet has been filed against the appellant.
- The Investigating Agency failed to obtain a search warrant for the appellant’s office, “Sun Shine Health and Social Welfare Society,” located in New Delhi.
- A proclamation order issued under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. on September 23, 2025, was set aside by the High Court on December 11, 2025, meaning no coercive steps were currently pending.
- Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), the counsel argued that the failure to arrest the accused for over two years was a ground for anticipatory bail.
- The appellant is ready to cooperate with the investigation.
State’s Submissions: Additional Government Advocate Sri S.N. Tilhari opposed the plea, asserting:
- The appellant is the “main kingpin” of the syndicate.
- Funds transferred from Rohingya persons to the appellant’s Society account were utilized to construct houses and huts for Rohingyas in India.
- The Supplementary Case Diary (SCD) No. 32 revealed incriminating conversations where the appellant instructed co-accused Abdul Awwal to “delete all conversations,” indicating malafide intent.
- The appellant had been absconding, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants on March 13, 2024, and February 13, 2025.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
On Investigating Agency’s Conduct: The Bench strongly criticized the Investigating Officer (IO) for failing to take effective steps to arrest the appellant despite the gravity of the charges. The Court noted:
“We put on record our serious displeasure and anguish on the callous and careless approach of the Investigating Agency, particularly the Investigating Officer(s) for not taking appropriate and proper steps to apprehend the present appellant in a issue where not only allegations are related for committing cognizable offences but on account of those offences the security, safety, peace and harmony of the country may likely be jeopardized.”
The Court directed the Registry to provide a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary of U.P., Additional Chief Secretary (Home), and the Director General of Police for “appropriate action/orders.”
On Anticipatory Bail: The Court distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the appellant (Gursewak Singh). The Judges observed that unlike the cited cases, the allegations here relate to the “security, safety, integrity, harmony and peace of the country.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail in such cases could harm the investigation. The Bench held:
“Prima facie, the offences are cognizable in nature… on the basis of allegation, which is based on the material so collected by the Investigating Agency by filing seven charge sheets, there might be possibility of custodial interrogation of the present appellant.”
Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the Special Judge.
However, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to appear before the Investigating Officer within a week to cooperate with the investigation. The Court clarified:
“It is absolutely upto the Investigating Agency/ Officer to take custody of the appellant, if his custodial interrogation is required inasmuch it should be absolute subjective satisfaction of the Investigating Agency/ Officer to take the accused person into custody.”
If the appellant is taken into judicial custody, the Court directed that his regular bail application be decided “strictly in accordance with law” and with expedition.
Case Details
- Case Title: Dr. Abdul Ghaffar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4153 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- Counsel for Appellant: Sri Purnendu Chakravarti (Senior Advocate), assisted by Sri Azizullah Khan, Mohammad Alishah Faruqi, Obaidullah, Pranjal Jain, and Ms. Aishwarya Saxena
- Counsel for Respondent: Sri S.N. Tilhari (AGA)
