Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to 5-time Member of Legislative Assembly from Mau constituency in Uttar Pradesh Mukhtar Ansari in a case lodged against him in 2020 under the Gangster Act.

While rejecting Ansari's bail plea, the single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh opined that considering Ansari's rich criminal history and the fact that in most of the cases against him either the witnesses turned hostile or they got eliminated, Ansari was not entitled to the relief of bail. 

Referring to Ansari's criminal history of 58 cases, the judge said, "If the present accused-applicant is not a gangster, then in this country no one can be said to be a gangster".

The present case was lodged in October 2020. During patrol duty, a police team apprehended an organized gang whose leader was Ansari. Thereafter, against Ansari and others, a case was registered under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Tarwan Police Station in Azamgarh district. 

Against Ansari's this gang, allegations were also there that in 2014 Ansari and his gang members opened fire on innocent workers hired by a rival contractor of Ansari while they were working, which resulted in the death of one person and injury to others.

When the instant bail plea was placed before the bench of Singh, who in September last year had overturned Ansari's acquittal and had convicted him in another case, Ansari's counsel informed the bench that he had received instructions to withdraw the bail application. 

However, noting that it appeared that Ansari wanted to avoid the bench comprising him, Justice Singh decided to proceed on merit instead of rejecting the bail application as withdrawn simplicitor.

"The Supreme Court has time and again deprecated the practice of bench-hunting, bench-hopping and bench-avoiding....The benchmark, that justice must not only be done but should also appear to be done, has to be preserved at all costs", the single-judge bench stated. 

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present matter, the bench further noted that the gang members of Ansari had opened indiscriminate fire on the innocent workers only to strike fear and terror and to send a message that no one should have dared to take contract work of the Government in that area except for Ansari. 

Therefore, taking into account Ansari's criminal antecedents and possibility of witness hampering, the bench rejected his bail plea. 

Case Title: Mokhtar Ansari v. State of U.P.