Supreme Court Grants Bail To UP MLA Abbas Ansari In Case Over Alleged Unauthorised Jail Meetings & Threats To Witnesses

The Supreme Court today granted bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari in a case involving allegations that his wife made unrestricted visits to him in Chitrakoot jail and he used her mobile phone to threaten witnesses and officials.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in Ansari's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order whereby he was denied bail. Notice was issued on the plea on July 25, calling for the UP government's response.

Dictating the order, Justice Kant said:

"Having regard to the fact that investigation is complete, chargesheet has been filed, the petitioner has been in custody for more than 1.5 years in this case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, and keeping in view that conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall remain present in court on each and every date of hearing, unless granted exemption from personal appearance."

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for State of UP) submitted that Ansari is in jail in other cases as well, including a PMLA case. This was countered by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Ansari), saying that Ansari got bail from another bench of the Supreme Court today only in the ED case.

Thereafter, Rohatgi argued that Ansari's wife was caught carrying two mobile phones inside the jail, which he used to threaten witnesses and officials. When the bench conveyed that it was not a case where state should oppose bail, Rohatgi responded that bail may be granted, but subject to a condition that Ansari and/or his wife reveal the pass-code to the mobile phones, as the forensic department has not been able to access them.

"He was running an extortion racket according to us...why can't they give us the code? That will show what was being done...the phones have not been opened. Undoubtedly, he was using the phone inside the jail...that is why this lady was carrying two phones...it's a part of investigation. He has to cooperate."

At this point, Justice Kant remarked that it is not uncommon for a person to have 2 mobile phones these days. The larger issue, instead, pertains to jail practices ie what kind of facility should be allowed.

Questioning how Ansari can give passcode to his wife's mobile phone, Sibal said, "it's my wife's phone...how can I give it? the wife is on bail!"

Ultimately, the bench granted Ansari bail and conveyed that he should cooperate to the extent law requires.

Background

Ansari, an MLA from Mau Assembly, was booked under Sections 387, 222, 186, 506, 201, 120-B, 195-A and 34 of IPC; Sections 7, 8 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and Section 42(b), 54 of Prisons Act, 1894.

The allegations against him in the present case are to the effect that his wife would frequently visit him in jail, without complying with formalities and prescribed restrictions, and he would use her mobile phone to threaten persons to extort money; a posse of men loyal to him would then collect the money and bring it to him.

It has further been alleged that Ansari is being provided all sorts of benefits during his incarceration for which officials of the jail are paid both in cash and kind. It is also the prosecution's case that Ansari is planning to stage an escape from the jail with the connivance of the driver of his wife as well as certain jail officials.

Seeking bail in the case, Ansari initially approached the Allahabad High Court claiming that no offence was made out against him. He pled that a meaningful reading of the FIR would indicate that the allegations are primarily against his wife and co-accused Niyaz, who have been granted bail.

Per contra, the State submitted that Ansari yields enormous influence, both in terms of money and muscle power, and under these circumstances, if he is released at this stage, he would influence the witnesses, which would adversely impact the prosecution's case.

After hearing both parties, the High Court refused to grant Ansari bail noting that eyewitnesses and policemen in the case remained to be examined. Considering his profile, background and family antecedents, the High Court was also of the opinion that the allegations against him “may not be completely without substance”.

Stressing that Ansari is an MLA, the High Court further observed that his conduct has to be of a “higher standard” than other common persons of the society. “The members of the Legislative Assembly are also the law makers and in juxtaposition, it is not appropriate that a law maker may be seen as a law breaker,” it remarked.

Case Title: ABBAS ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, SLP(Crl) No. 10235/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order