The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Dr. Abdul Ghaffar, accused in a case alleging illegal financial support to Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals. While rejecting the plea, the court expressed strong displeasure over the “callous and careless” approach of the investigating agency, even as it underlined that allegations in the case touch the security and integrity of the country.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR registered in October 2023 by the Uttar Pradesh ATS under multiple provisions of the IPC, the Foreigners Act and the Passport Act. The prosecution claims a syndicate was operating to provide illegal assistance - including funds and shelter - to Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals through hawala transactions and forged documents.
Read also:- ‘Privilege Cannot Be Pierced Lightly’: Delhi High Court Overturns Order Against McDonald’s Advocates
Dr. Ghaffar’s name appeared ninth in the FIR. According to his counsel, while seven charge sheets were filed against co-accused between January 2024 and February 2025, none named him. Most of the arrested accused were later granted regular bail.
The appellant moved the High Court after the Special NIA Court in Lucknow rejected his anticipatory bail application in November 2025.
Arguments by the Appellant
Senior Advocate Purnendu Chakravarti, appearing for Dr. Ghaffar, told the court that his client was implicated on “mere suspicion.” He argued that despite repeated charge sheets, the investigating agency never searched the office premises of the appellant’s NGO in Delhi.
The defence stressed that earlier non-bailable warrants and a proclamation order were set aside by the High Court in December 2025, and no fresh coercive steps were taken thereafter.
“This clearly shows custodial interrogation is not required,” the counsel submitted, adding that the appellant was willing to cooperate with the investigation without being arrested.
State’s Stand and Allegations
Opposing the appeal, the State described Dr. Ghaffar as the “kingpin” of the alleged syndicate. The Additional Government Advocate pointed to call records, financial trails and a supplementary case diary, claiming money from Rohingya individuals was routed to the NGO’s account and used to build shelters for them.
The prosecution also relied on forensic reports confirming telephonic conversations between the appellant and co-accused. One such conversation, it was alleged, ended with instructions to delete chat records - indicating a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses Arrest Protection to Lawyer Accused of Rape Despite Settlement Claims
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, took a stern view of both sides. While it refused anticipatory bail due to the gravity of allegations, the court openly questioned the investigating agency’s efficiency.
“The court records its serious displeasure and anguish at the careless approach of the investigating officers,” the bench observed, noting that no explanation was offered as to why search warrants were never sought for the appellant’s office despite claims of serious anti-national activities.
The judges directed that a copy of the order be sent to senior state officials, including the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, for “appropriate action.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Questions West Bengal Voter Roll Revision, Seeks Unified Reply from Election Commission
Decision
After weighing the submissions, the High Court held that this was not a fit case for anticipatory bail. It cited the seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of custodial interrogation, and the material already collected by investigators.
The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, and the order rejecting anticipatory bail was upheld. However, the court granted liberty to Dr. Ghaffar to appear before the investigating officer within a week and cooperate with the probe.
It clarified that if he is taken into custody, he would be free to apply for regular bail, which must be decided on its own merits and with urgency.
Case Title: Dr. Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4153 of 2025
Date of Decision: 9 January 2026
