In the Chitrakoot jail case, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail plea of MLA Abbas Ansari, son of mafia Mukhtar Ansari.
A Single Bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Abbas Ansari.
The applicant before the Court is a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Mau Assembly Seat. He has been arraigned as an accused in Case 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 and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, P.S Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot along with other named persons and some other unknown persons.
However, a charge sheet dated 10.04.2023 has been filed wherein the applicant has been charged under Sections 387, 506, 201, 120-B, 195-A, 186, 511 and 34 I.P.C and Section 8 of P.C Act, 1988, Sections 42 (b) and Section 54 of Prisons Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act as stated in the affidavit in support of the bail application.
The genesis of the matter is lodging of the First Information Report on 11.02.2023 at 04:20 hours stating that the applicant who is a member of the Legislative Assembly was lodged in District Jail, Chitrakoot. His wife for the past several days has been visiting the applicant in the Jail along with her driver and co-accused Niyaz. She is said to spend 3 to 4 hours inside the Jail without any restrictions.
The applicant is alleged to have used the mobile phones of his wife to threaten the witnesses and officials who were connected with the prosecution of the applicant. From the very same mobile, the applicant is alleged to have threatened various persons to extort money and posse of men who are loyal to the applicant would collect the money and bring it to the applicant.
It has further been alleged that the wife of the applicant frequently visited the jail without complying with the formalities and the prescribed restrictions and the applicant was being provided all sorts of benefits during his incarceration for which the officials of the jail were paid both in cash and kind.
It is also alleged that the driver of the applicant’s wife namely Niyaz along with the officials of the Jail were planning to stage an escape from the Jail.
Upon the information received from the informant, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police in civil clothes and in a private vehicle made a surprise inspection of the Jail. The applicant was not found in his barrack; rather he is said to be in the room right adjacent to the room of the Jail Superintendent along with his wife. Upon opening and entering the said room, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police found the applicant’s wife but the applicant was not there.
The police personnel posted on the Gate of the jail informed that the applicant had moved from the said room to his barrack a few minutes ago. However, the wife of the applicant was searched and from her bag, two mobile phones, certain ornaments, cash of Rs 21,000/- and foreign currency of 12 Riyals was recovered.
The police authorities required the applicant’s wife to give the passwords to open the two phones which were confiscated, however, she did not cooperate and rather gave incorrect passwords which resulted in the two phones being locked.
It is further alleged that upon further questioning, it was informed that the applicant’s wife along with the other accused and police officials were planning to stage an escape for the applicant. Certain witnesses were threatened and in case if they did not cooperate with the applicant i.e. if they did not turn hostile, they were to be eliminated.
It is also alleged that on the applicant’s instructions, his posse of loyalists were to create an atmosphere of terror so that the said alleged witnesses may not give their testimony and they would abide by the demands for money made by the applicant as extortion money.
The Court observed that,
The facts on record as they unfold is that the applicant does have a criminal history of ten cases. It is also not disputed that in all the cases except the case under the PMLA, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of the Court and including in the case by the Apex Court vide order dated 18.03.2024.
It is also a matter of fact that in the case, apart from the applicant, five other named persons and certain other unnamed all have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of the Court including the other co-accused Nikhat who is the wife of the applicant who has been enlarged by the Apex Court by means of order dated 11.08.2023.
The record further reveals that a Coordinate Bench of the Court by means of its order dated 12.09.2023 had quashed the charge sheet and the cognizance order emanating from Criminal Case. It is also not disputed that the applicant is a member of the Legislative Assembly and a public figure.
The Court further observed that,
During the course of submissions, the State had referred to a decision of a Coordinate Bench dated 20.11.2023 relating to the applicant where he had sought bail in Case which came to be rejected by a Coordinate Bench of the Court by means of order dated 20th November, 2023 and it was urged that certain observations made by the Coordinate Bench while rejecting the said bail application be considered for the purposes of ascertaining the kind of influence, the applicant is capable of exercising. In this regard, suffice to state that in the said Case, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court vide order dated 18.03.2024, thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the said observations may not have much persuading effect on the case.
Considering the aforesaid parameters and applying it to the facts of the case, it would be seen that the applicant is a Member of Legislative Assembly. He is a person who holds a responsible position and is a representative of the public. 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 lawmaker may be seen as a law breaker.
The applicant is a National Level Rifle Shooter and as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, he has earned laurels for his country and that being so it would be explicitly clear that any sport ingrains two habits in a person i.e discipline and the other is respect, for rules.
A person with the aforesaid backdrop knowing fully well that he was lodged in the Jail and his wife had been repeatedly meeting the applicant and from the CCTV footage as well as statements of the witnesses elicited during investigation it prima facie reflects towards the complicity of the applicant.
In normal circumstances and even as per the law, the Jail Authorities do not and could not grant such unrestricted access to any person which has been allegedly extended to the wife of the applicant, obviously at the asking of the applicant. The recovery of two mobile phones from the wife of the applicant who was found in the Jail premises in a room where she could not have access unless the Jail Authorities turned a blind eye.
Allegedly such dereliction of duty /violation of rules and regulations at the behest of the Jail Authorities, frequently and selectively for the applicant and his wife may not have been possible merely for monetary gains.
“Considering the profile and the background of the applicant and his family antecedents, the allegations may not be completely without substance. If such influence whether for monetary reason or under threat or coercion, if can be exercised over police and prison authorities so effectively who are basically enforcers of law then it can be well imagined how the applicant can effectively garner power to influence any witness or to persuade him to change his stand and this aspect if seen in light of the fact that the evidence is yet to commence.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances where the evidence is yet to commence and there are eyewitnesses and certain police authorities who were to be examined, hence, at this stage, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant”, the Court also observed while rejecting the bail application.