Don't Make Us Say Anything That Will Destroy Your Case: Supreme Court While Granting Anticipatory Bail To Umar Ansari In Evacuee Property Case
The Supreme Court today allowed the anticipatory bail application of Umar Ansari, the son of incarcerated gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari. Umar Ansari had been accused of taking illegal possession of an evacuee property owned by the Uttar Pradesh Government through their influence.
The U.P. Police had registered a case under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against Abbas Ansari, Umar Ansari, and Mukhtar Ansari. The F.I.R. stated that from a perusal of the records it transpired that the original Khataunis relating to the years 1371 Fasli to 1374 Fasli have been made to disappear so that the entry recorded on the basis of forged documents could not come to light.
The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ordered, "We have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Taking note that the Petitioner is cooperating in the investigation we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the trial Court."
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal along with Advocates Nizam Pasha, Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., and Sidharth Kaushik appeared for Umar Ansari. Justice Sundresh also cautioned the State of Uttar Pradesh, saying, "Please, don't make us say anything that will destroy your case... His grandmother had acquired the property, and he wasn't even born then. Please refrain yourself from arguing."
On July 17, 2023, the Apex Court granted the petitioner interim protection against arrest, contingent upon the petitioner's active participation in the ongoing legal proceedings. Prior to this, the Allahabad High Court had rejected Umar Ansari's anticipatory bail application. In response to this decision, Umar Ansari sought relief from the Apex Court.
The High Court had in its order noted that the charge-sheet alleges that during investigation it has been found that the application submitted to the L.D.A. for getting a building-plan sanctioned, bears the signatures of the applicant's grandmother in Hindi, whereas at no other place she used to sign in Hindi. It was also noted that Ansari's granmother either signed in Urdu or put her thumb-impression and the investigating officer has concluded that the aforesaid document was a forged document. The
The High Court found that the applicant is one of the beneficiaries of the alleged forgery and he has been charged for committing the offence of criminal conspiracy as well. In light of the same observations, the High Court did not find any good ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant by granting him Anticipatory Bail and accordingly dismissed the application.
Cause Title: Umar Ansari v. the State Of Uttar Pradesh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5579/2023]
