Rohingya Funding Syndicate | Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Alleged Kingpin, Slams IO For 'Callous' Approach

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava also expressed “serious displeasure and anguish” over the “callous and careless approach” of the investigating agency over failure to take appropriate steps to apprehend the accused in the case despite the gravity of the alleged offences.

Case in brief

Appellant (Dr Abdul Ghaffar) had moved the HC against an order of the Special Judge, NIA/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, which had rejected his pre-arrest bail plea in November 2025.

The case pertains to an FIR under stringent provisions, including 120-B (conspiracy), 370 (trafficking) of the IPC, the Foreigners Act and the Passport Act.

He has been accused of opening multiple accounts, taking cash by illegal means, and, through Hawala transactions from other countries, extending assistance to intruders and unauthorised persons engaged in anti-national activities.

It has been further alleged that the amount so credited in the account of the Society of the appellant had been utilised to construct some houses, huts (Jhuggi Jhopari), etc., for Rohingya persons in India at certain places.

Before the HC, the appellant's counsel argued that the appellant was implicated in the case solely on suspicion. It was also pointed out that, although seven charge sheets had been filed against other accused persons between January 2024 and February 2025, no charge sheet had been filed against the appellant.

It was submitted that though non-bailable warrants were issued against him twice and on a proclamation under Section 82/83 CrPC was also issued against him, the said order was set aside by the HC and the matter was remanded back to the Special Judge NIA/ASJ-3, Lucknow, to pass a fresh order as per law.

Importantly, it was also contended that although the IO visited his residential premises, no search warrant was obtained for the appellant's office premises in Delhi. It was submitted that this made it apparent that he was not willing to investigate the issue, as he had no material against the appellant.

Thus, it was argued that since no proper steps had been taken by the IO to apprehend the appellant, his custodial interrogation would not be required.

On the other hand, State Counsel SN Tilhari argued that even if the proclamation order dated had been set aside by the HC, but the appellant may be arrested by the Investigating Agency without any warrant since he has committed the cognizable offence having serious allegations

Court's Observation

At the outset, the bench took exception to the IO's failure to explain why he did not file any appropriate application seeking a search warrant for the appellant's official premises, where he might have received/ collected relevant materials/evidence.

“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...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 bench remarked.

Therefore, the court deemed it fit to forward a copy of its order to the Chief Secretary of the State, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Chief Minister of UP, and the Director General of Police, for information and appropriate action/orders.

Regarding the merits of the case, the bench did not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail, noting that the appellant faces serious allegations and that the investigating agency is collecting credible material and also that there is a likelihood of his custodial interrogation.

Furthermore, the Court also rejected the argument of the appellant's counsel that since the Investigating Agency had not arrested the accused person for the last two years, then that would be sufficient ground to consider the anticipatory bail of the appellant.

“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...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 noted.

The division bench specifically relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was held that “custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented” than questioning a suspect protected by a pre-arrest bail order.

Thus, the Court disposed of the appeal without interfering with the lower court's rejection order. However, it granted the appellant liberty to appear before the Investigating Officer within a week to cooperate with the investigation.

The Bench clarified that it is up to the “absolute subjective satisfaction” of the IO to decide whether to take the appellant into custody. The court clarified that if arrested, the appellant may apply for regular bail, which the trial court will decide expeditiously.