Mohd. Iqbal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Shri Dr. Shiv Bahadur Singh, Advocate, assisted by Shri Ram Prakash Pandey, Advocate, Shri Indra Ban Yadav, Advocate and Shri Shashank Shukla, Advocate, Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate and perused the record.

¶11

By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 of the BNS, akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now repealed), the applicant has challenged the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI (West)/ED, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in ECIR No.ECIR/ LKZO/04/2019, which reads as under :-

¶12

"प्राथीर् / अिभयुक्त मोहम्मद इकबाल की ओर से िरकाल/एनबीडब्लू आदेश नांिकत 01.12.2025 के िनरस्तीकरण हेतु प्राथर्ना पत्र प्रस्तुत िकया गया।

¶13

उपरोक्त प्राथर्ना पत्र पर भी तनसीफ का शपथ पत्र संलग्न है। अिभयुक्त का पथ पत्र संलग्न नही है। अिभयुक्त न तो न्यायालय उपिस्थत है और न ही उसके रा कोई शपथ पत्र िदया गया है। प्राथीर् तनसीफ कैसे अिभयुक्त की तरफ से. ppear हो रहा है, इसका भी कोई िविधक प्रपत्र नही है।

¶14

उपरोक्त पिरिस्थितयों में अिभयुक्त का िरकाल प्राथर्ना पत्र अिभयुक्त की गैर जूदगी में पोषणीय नही है एवं िनरस्त िकया जाता है।"

¶15

Assailing the impugned order dated 22.12.2025, it is stated that the trial court has rejected the application seeking recall of the order dated 01.12.2025, whereby the trial court has directed to issue non-bailable warrant against the applicant has been rejected on the ground(s) that:-

¶16

(i) The affidavit was filed by a power of attorney holder and,

¶17

(ii) The applicant was not present before the Court.

¶18

It is also stated that the applicant is presently residing in Dubai and his

¶19

A482 No. 932 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

passport has been cancelled by the concerned authority in India and against the said cancellation order, the applicant has filed the appeal, which is pending consideration.

¶22

It is further submitted that based upon the various facts including related to cancellation of passport, the applicant had approached this Court at Allahabad in connection with Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur and the said Criminal Writ Petition No. 825 of 2023 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2023.

¶23

Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by this Court, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5535 of 2023 and on 09.02.2024 an order was passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, after taking note of the fact that the applicant is not having valid passport, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court granted liberty to the applicant to join the investigation through video conferencing. The order referred is extracted herein under :-

¶24

"1. Mr. Sidhartha Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in pursuant to order passed by this Court dated 30th January, 2024, the applicant will not be in a position to attend Investigating Officer physically, inasmuch as he does not have a valid passport.

¶25

2. It is further submitted that the order challenging cancellation of passport is under challenge.

¶26

3. We, therefore, grant liberty to the applicant to join the investigation through video-conferencing.

¶27

4. The application is, accordingly, disposed of."

¶28

Subsequently, on order dated 31.01.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court had granted interim protection to the present applicant by saying "until further order(s), it is directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in the present FIR as well as any other FIR lodged hereinafter".

¶29

It is further stated that the applicant had also approached this Court by filing an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.22140 of 2023, challenging the proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, Police Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur. This application was also filed through a power-of-attorney holder and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2023, holding that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed through a power-ofattorney holder is not maintainable.

¶30

The order dated 12.09.2023, thereafter was impeached/assailed by the applicant before the Hon’ble Apex Court, by means of a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 12368 of 2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the case, interfered in the order of this Court dated 12.09.2023 and allowed the same and remanded the matter back to this Court for afresh consideration. The relevant portion of this order dated 13.01.2026 is extracted herein below:-

A482 No. 932 of 2026

3

"1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this criminal appeal is, whether a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable through a power of attorney holder.

¶35

3. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents.

¶36

4. We have perused the impugned order passed by the High Court.

¶37

5. In our considered view, the High Court has adopted a hyper technical view in deciding the maintainability of the petition, and dismissing the same. Considering the fact that the power of attorney is in favour of the agent of the appellant, there is no bar for entertaining the petition, and thereafter, deciding the same on merits.

¶38

6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order stands set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, and to be decided on merits.

¶39

7. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

¶40

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶41

Based upon the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 13.01.2026, it is further stated that a perusal of the same would indicate that the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically observed that there is no bar for entertaining the petition if filed by the power-of-attorney holder.

¶42

It is further stated that in view of the specific observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the entertaining of the application of an accused through power of attorney holder, particularly in the case of the present applicant, interference of this Court is required.

¶43

Shri Rohit Tripathi, the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, he could not dispute the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the applicant.

¶44

Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and also the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds that indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI (West)/ED, is quashed and the matter be remanded to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶45

It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶46

The instant application is allowed in above terms.

¶47

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶48

February 12, 2026

¶49

Preeti

¶50

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Iqbal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Iqbal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Azim Beg vs Shri Sanjay Mishra, Dist. Minority Welfare Officer Barabanki

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jugal Kishor vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head Iti Ltd. Mankapur Gonda

Sarvjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari and 47 Others vs Shri Atul Kumar Tiwari District Basic Education Officer Gonda

Smt. Rukhsana Begam vs Sri Chander Bhan Yadav Regional Food Controller Devi Patan Mandal Gonda