Security, Peace And Harmony Of Country May Be Jeopardized: Allahabad High Court Expresses Anguish Over Not Arresting Alleged Kingpin Of Rohingya Funding Syndicate

The Criminal Appeal was filed under Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, against the order of the Special Judge, NIA/Additional Sessions Judge Lucknow, rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the appellant who was booked under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 370 of IPC and Section 14 of Foreigners Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan 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) 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, therefore, this fact must come to the notice of the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P., Additional Chief Secretary, Home, U.P., Principal Secretary/ Secretary of the Chief Minister of U.P. and Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow for information and appropriate action/ orders.”

“Registry of this Court is directed to provide copy of this order to the aforesaid officers within three working days on the top priority basis for compliance”, it ordered.

Advocate Azizullah Khan represented the Appellant, while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the appellant’s case that since in the proclamation order, warrants and other coercive orders/steps had been merged, and the proclamation order was set aside by the Court, it could safely be presumed that there was no coercive step of any kind whatsoever against the appellant. It was further submitted that since no proper steps had been taken by the Investigating Officer to apprehend the appellant, custodial interrogation of the appellant was not required.

It was the case of the respondent that serious allegations had been levelled against the present appellant, and he was the main kingpin of the entire syndicate wherein the co-accused persons were indulging in extending illegal and unwarranted help to Bangladeshi, Rohingya people and those people whose activities are against the nation. It was further submitted that the accused persons, including the present appellant, had created a syndicate by opening different accounts, taking cash by illegal means and by means of Hawala transactions from other countries to extend help to intruders and unauthorised persons, who are indulged in anti-national activities.

Reasoning

In light of the fact that the allegations were serious, credible evidence and materials were being collected by the investigating agency, and there was a likelihood of custodial interrogation of the appellant, the Bench held that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

The Bench held, “...we are of the considered opinion that since the allegations so levelled against the present appellant are very serious in nature relating to the security, safety, integrity, harmony and peace of the country, as considered herein above in the preceding paragraphs of this order, prima facie, the offences are cognizable in nature; despite knowing the fact that the investigation is going on against the present appellant wherein non-bailable warrants and proclamation were issued against him though the same have been set aside by this Court but the present appellant did not appear before the Investigating Agency…”

The Bench further found that the appellant had not been arrested for more than two years, and coercive steps were taken against the appellant to apprehend him, issuing a non-bailable warrant and proclamation order, but the same were set aside by the Court on a technical ground.

The Bench thus disposed of the criminal appeal without interfering with the impugned order of the Special Judge, NIA, rejecting the Anticipatory Bail Application. The Bench gave liberty to the appellant to appear before the Investigating Officer at the earliest, preferably within a week, to cooperate in the investigation and provide all relevant materials which are within his possession or knowledge.

“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 his custodial interrogation is at all required”, the Bench held.

Cause Title: Dr Abdul Ghaffar v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:1806-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Azizullah Khan, Mohammad Alishah Faruqi, Obaidullah, Pranjal Jain

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order