HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Dr. Abdul Ghaffar - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. - 4153 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of anticipatory bail application. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments relating to allegations and opposition. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 3. court's observations on investigation and bail. (Para 12 , 15 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. ratio decidendi based on case law. (Para 17 , 20 , 22) |
| 5. final decision on anticipatory bail application. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarti, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Azizullah Khan as well as Ms. Aishwarya Saxena, learned counsels for the appellant and Sri S.N. Tilhari, learned AGA for the State-respondents.
2. Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Inspector/ Investigating Officer is present in person alongwith the case diary, some relevant extract thereof has been shown to the Court.
3. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the present appellant bearing Anticipatory Bail Application No.9065 of 2025 in Case Crime No.12 of 2023, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 370 of IPC and Section 14 of Foreigners Act, Police Station- ATS Gomtinagar, District- Lucknow.
4. Sri Purnendu Chakravarti has submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged on 11.10.2023 in Case Crime No.12 of 2023, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 370 of IPC, Section 14 of Foreigners Act & Sections 12(1) & 12(2) of Passport Act, 1967, Police Station- ATS Gomtinagar, District- Lucknow against ten accused persons including the present appellant whose name finds place at serial no.9 in the FIR. Accused nos.1 to 7 have been implicated on the basis of their direct role whereas accused nos.8, 9 & 10 have been implicated on the basis of suspicion. He has further submitted that pursuant to the impugned FIR, the investigation commenced by the Investigating Agency and charge sheets have filed in regular intervals. To be more precise, first charge sheet was filed on 05.01.2024; second on 15.03.2024; third on 03.04.2024; fourth on 01.05.2024; fifth on 14.06.2024; sixth on 26.09.2024 and seventh on 24.02.2025 as those charge sheets have been enclosed with this appeal. No charge sheet has been filed against the present appellant and pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheets, the accused persons have been arrested and they have been enlarged on regular bail.
5. Sri Chakravarti has submitted that the appellant came to know that non- bailable warrants were issued against him on 13.03.2024 and on 13.02.2025. Vide order dated 23.09.2025, proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the appellant. The aforesaid proclamation order dated 23.09.2025 was assailed by the appellant before this Court by filing Application U/S 482 No.10382 of 2025. The aforesaid application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2025 setting aside the order dated 23.09.2025 remanding back the issue to the Magistrate/ Court concerned i.e. Special Judge NIA/ASJ-3, Lucknow to pass fresh order as per law.
6. Sri Purnendu Chakravarti has further submitted that after lodging the FIR on 11.10.2023, the Investigating Agency did not initiate any steps to obtain search warrant of the premises of the office of the appellant, which is in the name of Sun Shine Health and Social Welfare Society having its office at 163 Phase 3rd J.J. Colony Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi- 110076 (hereinafter referred to as "the Society"). He has further submitted that though the Investigating Officer is said to have visited residential premises of the appellant from where he is said to have absconded but if the Investigating Agency was willing to investigate the issue, particularly ascertaining his culpability, the office premises of the Society should have been searched. There may be likelihood that no credible evidence might have been received by the Investigating Agency again
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others
The court held that granting anticipatory bail in cases involving serious allegations related to national security would impede ongoing investigations and is thus not warranted.
The court emphasized the need for a balance between individual liberty and societal interest in granting anticipatory bail, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the accused's antece....
The court established that a person cannot be deemed a proclaimed offender without a formal declaration under Section 82(4) CrPC, allowing for the possibility of anticipatory bail.
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 43D(4) of the UAPA in cases involving serious charges of terrorism, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in s....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief granted sparingly, especially when investigation integrity may be compromised by political influence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.