Allahabad HC Denies Bail To MLA Abbas Ansari In Case Of Alleged Unrestricted Jail Meetings With Wife

A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that considering Ansari's profile, background and family antecedents, the allegations against him “may not be completely without substance”.

Further, the single judge refused to grant him bail at this stage as he noted that the eyewitnesses and policemen in the case are yet to be examined.

Noting that Ansari could exercise his influence over police and prison authorities so effectively, the Court said that it can be well imagined how the applicant can effectively” garner power to influence any witness or to persuade him to change his stand” when the evidence is yet to commence.

Stressing that Ansari is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, holding a responsible position, and is a public representative, the Court said 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,” the Court remarked.

The Court further said that the CCTV footage and statements of the witnesses elicited during the investigation it prima facie reflects Ansari's complicity.

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

The allegations are further to the effect that his wife would frequently visit the jail without complying with the formalities and the prescribed restrictions.

It was alleged that Ansari was being provided all sorts of benefits during his incarceration for which the officials of the jail were paid both in cash and kind.

In fact, the main allegation against him was to the effect that he would use his wife's mobile phones to threaten persons to extort money, and a posse of men loyal to him would collect the money and bring it to him.

It was also alleged that he was also 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 argued before the High Court that no offence had been made against him. A meaningful reading of the FIR would indicate that the allegations are primarily against his wife and the other co-accused, Niyaz, who have been granted bail.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the state opposed his bail plea by contending that solid evidence had emerged against Ansari and that the CCTV footage showed his complicity in the crime.

It was further submitted that the applicant yields enormous influence, both in terms of money and muscle power. Under these circumstances, if he is released at this stage, he would influence the witnesses, which would turn the tide of the trial, adversely impacting the prosecution's case.

In regard to the grant of bail to his wife, the state counsel submitted that the Apex Court had enlarged her bail solely because she was a nursing mother with a one-year-old child.

Taking into account the submissions of both parties and looking to prima facie probe in the case, the Court refused to grant him bail, and thus, his bail application was rejected.

Case title - Abbas Ansari vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 280

Click here to read/download order