North India

Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Umar Ansari

The High Court said that the offence is made out after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case.

Prayagraj (UP): The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Umar Ansari, son of gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari, in a criminal case registered against him during the 2022 Assembly elections for alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).

Related Stories
Remarks against PM Modi: SC dismisses Pawan Khera’s plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings
SC Acknowledges Adequacy of UP Authorities’ Measures in Ensuring Security for Mukhtar Ansari
Property of gangster Mukhtar’s aide attached in ambulance case
Mukhtar Ansari Found Guilty in Eighth Case
Difficult to accept contention that parties don’t have wherewithal to travel to Allahabad HC, says SC on Shahi Masjid Eidgah managment’s plea

The High Court said that the offence is made out after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case.

“Further his act of forum hunting, his criminal history, which would go to show that the applicant has indulged in various types of criminal activities and his non-cooperation with the trial proceedings, this court is of the view that present anticipatory bail application be dismissed,” Justice Samit Gopal said.

An FIR was lodged on March 4, 2022 at Kotwali police station in Mau district against Abbas Ansari (SBSP candidate from the Mau Sadar seat), Umar Ansari and 150 unknown people. It was alleged in the FIR that on March 3, 2022 in a public meeting at Pahadpura ground, Abbas Ansari, Umar Ansari, and organiser Mansoor Ahmad Ansari had called for settling scores with the Mau administration. It is a case of violation of the MCC.

During the course of hearing, Senior Advocate GS Chaturvedi, representing Umar Ansari, contended that the applicant is not the main accused in the present case. It is argued that co-accused Abbas Ansari is the main accused in the matter and has been granted bail by the trial court.

The defence counsel argued that as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant did not give any such speech prejudicial to law and order.

It was argued that “the nature of the said case would go to show that the same has been lodged only out of vengeance.”

However, Additional Advocate General PC Srivastava, opposed the plea arguing that after in-depth investigation a charge sheet was filed against the applicant and co-accused on which the trial court had taken cognisance and summoned them.

“So far as the allegations against the applicant are concerned, the same go to show that an offence is made out which has been upheld right up to the Supreme Court in a challenge by the applicant,” Srivastava contended.

aw
Back to top button