Allahabad High Court

ABDUL JABBAR SIDDIQUI @ ABDUL JABBARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail, holding that the long delay precludes the necessity of custodial interrogation and that the applicant poses no flight or tampering risk.

Summary

Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under several IPC sections and the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged conduct occurred in 1999 but the FIR was lodged only in 2009. The applicant argued that there was no need for custodial interrogation, he had no criminal record, and he would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the facts. The court relied on a recent Supreme Court decision (Veena Devi v. State of Bihar) which held that a 16‑year gap between the offence and FIR negates the need for custodial interrogation. Finding no risk of flight, tampering, or repeat offences, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond and a series of conditions.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate basis for granting anticipatory bail when there is a long delay between the alleged offence and the filing of the FIR?
Whether custodial interrogation is justified in a case where the offence allegedly occurred 16 years prior to the FIR.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 13(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
custodial interrogation
delay in FIR
IPC offences
Prevention of Corruption Act
bail conditions
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9619 of 2026

Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui @ Abdul Jabbar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nagendra Krishna, Pavan Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the
prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui
@ Abdul Jabbar in Case Crime No. 295 of 2009, under Sections 406,
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(2) Prevention of
Corruption Act, Police Station - Mangalpur, District - Kanpur Dehat.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and
perused the material available on record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a
private person and it is alleged that applicant was agent and has got loan
sanctioned from the bank under government scheme. It is submitted that
loan was sanctioned in the year 1999 and the First Information Report
was lodged in the year 2009. It is submitted that charge sheet has been
submitted on 31.8.2021 and cognizance has been taken on 27.4.2023 and
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The material has already been submitted before
the investigating agency by the prosecution. If the applicant is enlarged on
anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the
investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his/her arrest by the
police any time.The applicant has no criminal history.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but does not dispute the factual
matrix.
NABAIL No. 9619 of 2026
2

5. It is to be seen that in the present case the alleged occurrence is of the
year 1999 and the first information report has been lodged in the year
2009.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 9.3.2026 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1218 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.11452 of
2025), Veena Devi Vs. The State of Bihar has held that where the
offence was committed 16 years prior to the lodging of the first
information report, there is no ground for custodial interrogation. Para 6
of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:-

"6. As the subject FIR registered in the year 2024 relates to an offence
allegedly committed 16 years prior thereto, we are of the opinion that no
grounds are made out for custodial interrogation of the appellant at this
stage."

7. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances
suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for
the State.

8. In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in
respect of offence described in para 1 of the present order. In the event of
arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his/her
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a
police office as and when required.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
office.
NABAIL No. 9619 of 2026
3

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court concerned.

(iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant
shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new
residential address in writing.

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself/herself available for interrogation whenever required.

(vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected
by the police.

(vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

(viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his
address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court
concerned.

(ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and
cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

(x) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court
concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the
court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in
accordance with law.

9. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer
shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
protection granted to the applicant.

10. With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application
stands allowed.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 23, 2026
D. Tamang

Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…