In a criminal appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court Bench at Lucknow under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, against an order dated 19-11-2025 by the Special Judge, NIA, whereby the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail was rejected, a Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava refused to interfere with the impugned order since the allegations against the appellant were related to the security and safety of the country.
The appellant is accused of committing offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It was submitted that the impugned First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged against ten accused persons, including the appellant. After the investigation, various charge sheets were filed at regular intervals, but none was filed against the appellant.
The appellant came to know that non-bailable warrants had been issued against him, and, by an order dated 23-09-2025, a proclamation under Sections 82/83 was issued against him, which was assailed before this Court. The said order was remanded to Special Judge, NIA by an order dated 11-12-2025 to pass a fresh order.
The respondents opposed the appeal by submitting that serious allegations were levied against the appellant and that he was the main kingpin of an entire syndicate that indulged in extending illegal and unwarranted help to Bangladeshis, Rohingyas, and other people engaged in anti-national activities. It was also contended that, based on surveillance of the accused persons, the Investigating Agency came to know that the appellant spoke to some unauthorized and anti-national persons.
Considering the submissions, the Court confronted the respondents as to why the Investigating Officer failed to take serious efforts to apprehend the appellant if the culpability of the appellant had come to notice before lodging of the impugned FIR, as the allegations against him were related to the security and safety of the country. The IO could not provide any cogent reasons to the Court.
The Court recorded its displeasure and anguish at the callous and careless approach of the Investigating Agency, specifically the Investigating Officer, for not taking proper steps to apprehend the appellant in an issue where the security, safety, peace, and harmony of the country could be jeopardized. The Court stated that the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, U.P., Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Chief Minister of U.P., and the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow must be given notice of this fact for information and appropriate action or orders.
A copy of the present order was directed to be provided to the aforesaid officers within three days on top priority for compliance.
Further, the Court did not find the present case fit for anticipatory bail, as the allegations were serious and supported by credible evidence, and as the investigating agency was in the process of collecting additional materials against the appellant. The Court also said that since there might be a possibility of custodial interrogation of the appellant, it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
The Court stated that it was following the observations of the Supreme Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 and disposed of the present appeal without interfering in the impugned order, while giving liberty to the appellant to appear before the IO within a week to cooperate in the investigation and to provide all relevant materials within his possession.
The Court stated that it would be up to the investigating agency to take the accused person into custody, if his custodial interrogation was at all required. It was held that, if he is taken into judicial custody, the appellant could file his regular bail before a competent court of law, which would be decided strictly in accordance with the law.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Purnendu Chakravarti (Sr. Adv), Azizullah Khan, Aishwarya Saxena, Mohammad Alishah Faruqi, Obaidullah, Pranjal Jain
For Respondents – G.A., S.N. Tilhari (AGA)
