'Sets A Perilous Precedent': Allahabad HC On Non-Execution Of 100+ NBWs Against Meerut MLA In A Criminal Case
The Allahabad High Court last week denied relief to Meerut MLA Rafiq Ansari in a 1995 case, noting that the Samajwadi Party leader failed to appear in Court despite the issuance of 100+ non-bailable warrants between 1997 and 2015. "...non execution of non-bailable warrant against the sitting MLA and allowing him to participate in assembly session sets a perilous and...
The Allahabad High Court last week denied relief to Meerut MLA Rafiq Ansari in a 1995 case, noting that the Samajwadi Party leader failed to appear in Court despite the issuance of 100+ non-bailable warrants between 1997 and 2015.
"...non execution of non-bailable warrant against the sitting MLA and allowing him to participate in assembly session sets a perilous and egregious precedent", observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh.
The Court added that by allowing individuals facing serious criminal charges to evade legal accountability, we “risk perpetuating a culture of impunity and disrespect for the rule of law”.
The Court made these remarks while dealing with Ansari's quashing plea concerning a Criminal Case under Sections 147, 436, and 427 IPC pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, MP/MLA, Meerut.
The case in brief
In this case, an FIR was lodged in September 1995 against 35-40 unknown persons for the offences under the aforementioned sections.
After the investigation culminated, the first charge sheet was submitted against 22 accused persons, and thereafter, another supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the applicant Ansari, of which the concerned court took cognizance in August 1997.
Because Ansari had not appeared before the Court, a non-bailable warrant was issued on December 12, 1997. Afterwards, despite repeated non-bailable warrants (101 in number) and processes under Section 82 CrPC, the applicant did not appear before the trial court.
Seeking quashing of the case, Ansari moved the HC wherein his counsel argued that 22 accused persons, originally charged in the case, were acquitted after facing trial vide judgment and order dated 15.05.1997. Hence, proceedings against him should be quashed.
At the outset, the Court noted that evidence recorded in a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and does not have any bearing upon a co-accused who has been or will be tried separately.
As such, the Court observed that securing acquittal by co-accused cannot be considered relevant circumstances and a ground for exercising the power under section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings against those accused who have not faced trial.
Perusing the order sheet of the trial court, the Court further noted that 13 NBWs and 89 NBWs and processes under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were issued against him.
Subsequently, 21 non-bailable warrants and processes were issued against him (between April 2022 and February 2024), and despite this, he failed to appear in court.
Under the peculiar facts of the case, the court said that it could not shut its eyes and became a silent spectator. Opining that for the enforcement of law, there should not be selective treatment among the public, the Court remarked thus:
“…non execution of non-bailable warrant against the sitting MLA and allowing him to participate in assembly session sets a perilous and egregious precedent, that undermines the integrity of the State machinery and judicial system while eroding public trust in elected representatives… Failure to address such issue not only compromises the principles of democracy but also jeopardizes the fabric of the society, perpetuating a cycle of corruption and lawlessness. It is imperative that elected officials uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and accountability, lest they betray the very essence of their mandate to serve the public good”
Against this backdrop, the court dismissed his petition and directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Principal Secretary of the UP Legislative Assembly for placement before the Speaker of the state assembly for information.
The Court also directed the Director General of Police, State of UP, to ensure the service of a non-bailable warrant already issued by the Trial Court against Ansari, if the same has not yet been served, and a compliance affidavit shall be filed on the next date.
The matter has been listed for July 22 only for the limited purpose of filing a compliance affidavit.
Case title - Rafique Ansari vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8390 of 2024]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 286