The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail of Mukhtar Ansari’s son Umar Ansari till the next hearing date with certain conditions in the election code violation case.
A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Umar Ansari.
This is the second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant Umar Ansari, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest 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.
The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C was rejected by the Court vide order dated 17.10.2022.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the First Information Report of the matter was lodged on 04.3.2022 by Sub Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Mau alleging therein that on 3.3.2022 at about 20:30 hours while being on routine checking duty with other police personnels he reached Pahadpura ground he saw persons of Bhartiya Suhail Dev Samaj Party along with candidate Abbas Ansari with whom the applicant Umar Ansari and the organizer Mansoor Ahmad Ansari and around 150 unknown people were collected in which there was speech going on that after elections accounts will be settled with the Mau administration. The same was breach of Code of Conduct which was punishable under Section 177-Cha, 506 I.P.C.
It is argued that subsequently during investigation Sub Inspector Sushil Kumar Dubey was interrogated who stated that there was such language being used by the accused persons due to which there were chances of unrest being spread between the communities.
It is further argued that subsequently Sections 186/189 and 153A/120B I.P.C were added in the matter.
It is also argued that in so far as the applicant is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that he gave any such speech which was prejudicial to the law and order.
It is argued that a charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and other accused persons on which cognizance has been taken but no offence whatsoever is made out against the applicant.
It is argued that the applicant be protected by granting anticipatory bail application in the matter.
Per contra, the Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and while placing facts of the matter argued that the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Court as not pressed on the ground of documents being insufficient.
Subsequently the applicant filed an anticipatory bail application before the concerned trial court which was rejected and then the anticipatory bail application was filed before the Court.
It is argued that in between the applicant preferred a Criminal Misc Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C challenging the charge sheet, cognizance order and summoning order in which initially there was an interim order but subsequently the said petition stood dismissed after which the same was challenged before the Apex Court which also stood dismissed with liberty to the applicant to raise his grievances at the state of discharge at the appropriate stage.
It is argued that as of now the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C have been initiated against the applicant.
The Court granted 10 days time to file counter affidavit for the State and 10 days time to file rejoinder affidavit for the applicant.
The Court ordered that,
In the event of arrest of the applicant Umar Ansari, in Case under Sections 506, 171-F, 186, 189, 153-A, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Mau he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail, till the next date of listing, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- with two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the applicant and the other should be a local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has a passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.
In case, the applicant does not cooperate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.