The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Umar Ansari son of Mukhtar Ansari, accused in the election code of conduct violation and controversial remarks made against officials.
A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Umar Ansari.
This is the second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the applicant- Umar Ansari with the following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Court may graciously be pleased to allow the second anticipatory bail application release the Applicant on anticipatory bail in Case under Sections 506, 171-F, 186, 189, 153-A, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Mau during pendency of the Trial before the Trial Court otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And or to pass such other and further orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
The first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as not pressed by the Court order dated 17.10.2022.
The facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 04.03.2022 by Ganga Ram, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Mau, District Mau against Abbas Ansari the candidate of 356 Vidhan Sabha constituency Mau Sadar of Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party, Umar Abbas Ansari and 150 unknown people with the allegation that on 03.03.2022 at about 20.30 hours he along with other police constables was on routine duty of maintaining law & order and inspection on which they reached Pahadpura ground and saw Abbas Ansari (the candidate), Umar Abbas Ansari, the organizer Mansoor Ahmad Ansari and around 150 unknown people collected together exhorting the District Mau Administration from the stage of settling their accounts after election and setting them right which was breach of code of conduct and punishable u/s 171-F and 506 IPC.
The first information report was thus lodged as Case under Sections 506, 171-F I.P.C, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Mau.
The matter was investigated after which a charge-sheet dated 11.05.2022 was submitted against Abbas Ansari and Umar Abbas Ansari, under Sections 506, 171-F, 186, 189, 153-A, 120-B IPC.
In so far as the other accused being Mansoor Ahmad Ansari and 150 unknown persons were concerned it was mentioned therein that the investigation is going on with regards to them. On the said charge-sheet the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Mau vide order dated 23.05.2022 took cognizance upon it and the accused persons were summoned to face trial.
A challenge to the said charge-sheet dated 11.05.2022 and the order of cognizance and summoning dated 23.05.2022 was done by both the accused persons before the Court in a Criminal Misc Application U/S 482 (Abbas Ansari and another vs State of U.P and 2 others) which was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of the Court.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not the main accused in the case. It is argued that co-accused Abbas Ansari is the main accused in the matter who has been granted bail by the concerned trial court.
It is further argued that as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant did not give any such speech prejudicial to law & order and extorting the public at large.
It is also argued that there is no overt act assigned to the applicant in the matter.
The Court observed that,
After having heard counsels for the parties, perusing the entire records and material on record, it transpires that the application u/s 438 Cr.P.C is a second application by the applicant. The first application u/s 438 Cr.P.C with the same prayer was dismissed as not pressed on 17.10.2022 as prayed by the counsel for the applicant by making a statement that he intends to file a better application annexing some more documents disclosing subsequent development. When the said first anticipatory bail application was got dismissed, the investigation in the matter had already concluded and a charge-sheet dated 11.05.2022 had already been filed against the applicant and co-accused Abbas Ansari on which the trial court took cognizance and summoned them to face trial vide order dated 23.05.2022.
Since the investigation had concluded and charge-sheet was filed on which cognizance was taken and the accused persons were summoned, the part of investigation in the matter insofar as the applicant and co-accused Abbas Ansari are concerned stood concluded. The applicant and co-accused Abbas Ansari then challenged the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance and summoning them before the Court in an application u/s 482 CrPC. The said challenge stood rejected vide order dated 01.02.2023. Against the said order the applicant Umar Ansari only filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2023 but the said order stated that it would not foreclose the option of the petitioner therein to seek discharge at the appropriate stage of the proceedings in accordance with law.
Subsequent to it the anticipatory bail application being the second anticipatory bail application was filed before the Court. The trial court then issued process u/s 82 Cr.P.C vide its order dated 28.08.2023. The facts as enumerated above do show that after the dismissal of the first anticipatory bail application as not pressed on the ground of filing a better petition annexing some more documents and disclosing subsequent development, the applicant and co-accused challenged the proceedings of the trial court before the Court in which a specific challenge was of the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance and summoning them. They were thus well informed about the proceedings against them in the trial court.
The dismissal of the said 482 Cr.P.C petition and also the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court did not in any manner have any bearing on the investigation in the matter but the case would show that it is a fit matter for putting the applicant and co-accused up for trial and prima facie offence is made out. The applicant despite the same did not appear before the trial court. On the call through summoning order, warrants and then even through order issuing process u/s 82 Cr.P.C the applicant chose not to appear before the trial court despite the fact that two co-accused persons had appeared before it and were granted bail by it.
He resorted to filing the second anticipatory bail application. Subsequently at the last stage his challenge to the charge-sheet, cognizance and summoning order before the High Court got dismissed and then a challenge to the said order before the Apex Court also was dismissed.
“Although a case for interference could have been made out but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case cumulatively being on merits of the matter since offence is made out, his act of forum hunting, the fact that two co-accused Abbas Ansari and Mansoor Ahmad Ansari have been granted bail by the trial court, further considering in the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application disclosing and explaining the criminal history of the applicant which would go to show that the applicant is indulged in various types of criminal activities and his non-cooperation with the trial proceedings, the Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application be dismissed”, the Court further observed while dismissing the anticipatory bail application.