# Mokhtar Ansari (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 278
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46494 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mokhtar-ansari-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-48760
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1860 - Section - 439, - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 419, 420,
467, 468 & 471 - Application for Bail -
principles of parity - allegation of cheating,
forgery and mis-utilization of public money to
the tune of Rs. 25 Lacs from Vidhayak Nidi
along with co-accused - F.I.R. - during
investigation - reveals that - on a forged
proposal for construction of a School on plot in
question said money was realised in favour of
the co-accused (whom are their own party
members) by the applicant and in place of
school there were a banana & wheat crop is
cultivated - applicant who is a sitting M.L.A. and
facing various criminal trials about 58 criminal
cases even in the age of 54 years and he is in
jail since year 2005 seeking parity with coaccused - while considering the nature of
involvement of the accused in the crimes and
since he is no doubt to be named as 'history
sheeter', & become interSt. Mafia - court afraid
to extend the benefit of parity - consequently,
the bail application is rejected.
(Para - 32, 34, 37)

(B) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code1 1973 - Section - 439, - Indian Penal
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
279
Code,1860 - Sections 120-B, 419, 420,
467, 46 &, 471: - Cognizance of mis-utilization
of Vidhayak Nidhi - Court find that - MLAs are
not monarch or king of that area who can throw
away or whimsicaly distribute the Vidhayak
Nidhi as larges - Vidhayak Nidhi is a hard earned
money of a tax payer not a private fiefdom any
MLA - St. govt. is requested to constitute a
committee under the leadership of Speaker of
Assembly with three senior bureaucrats to audit
the Vidhayak Nidhi of individual MLA and its
utilization - directions issued accordingly.
(Para - 22, 36)

(C) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 439, - Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Section 120-B, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471: - Expedite disposal of trials -
Applicant who is claiming himself to be a
popular public figure & elected MLA from six
consecutive time - this is most unfortunate and
ugly face of our democracy where a person who
has facing various criminal trials about 58 cases
in his 54 years of life and become inter-St. Mafia
- all these things if taken cumulatively goes to
show that he is a simply canker to the society -
Trial court directed to take up the aforesaid
sessions trials on the top most priority and
decide without consuming further time -
directions issued accordingly. (Para - 25, 32)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,905 of 49,459. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39905 for what follows._

278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
necessary in the interest of justice, he may,
after expressing his views, refer the matter
to the Judge who had granted bail, for
appropriate orders.

4. If it appears that a bail order
has been passed in favour of an accused on
the basis of wrong or incorrect documents
it is open to any Judge to initiate action for
cancellation of bail."

17. Therefore, from the above
discussion, it is apparent that parity cannot
become the sole criteria to grant bail and if
the bail granted to similarly placed coaccused persons without assigning any
reasons then on the basis of such bail
orders merely on the ground of parity, the
bail application should not be allowed and
parity can only be persuasive in nature and
cannot be binding.

18. In the present case, in the dying
declaration of the deceased, there is
specific allegation against the applicant that
he alongwith co-accused persons dragged
the deceased in his house and poured
kerosene oil on her and when she tried to
manage to escape then after chasing her
applicant and co-accused persons ablazed
her and post mortem report of the deceased
further shows that she died due to ante
mortem burn injuries and co-accused
persons who were although released on bail
by co-ordinate Bench of this Court but their
bail orders shows that they were released
on bail merely on the basis of the argument
advanced by their respective counsels
without assigning any reasons, therefore, in
my view, it is not a fit case in which
applicant can either be released on bail on
merit or on the ground of parity.

19. Accordingly, the present bail
application is dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 278
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46494 of
2021

Mokhtar Ansari ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Upendra Upadhayay

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Ratnesh Kumar Singh, A.G.A., Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi (A.A.G.)

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1860 - Section - 439, - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 419, 420,
467, 468 & 471 - Application for Bail -
principles of parity - allegation of cheating,
forgery and mis-utilization of public money to
the tune of Rs. 25 Lacs from Vidhayak Nidi
along with co-accused - F.I.R. - during
investigation - reveals that - on a forged
proposal for construction of a School on plot in
question said money was realised in favour of
the co-accused (whom are their own party
members) by the applicant and in place of
school there were a banana & wheat crop is
cultivated - applicant who is a sitting M.L.A. and
facing various criminal trials about 58 criminal
cases even in the age of 54 years and he is in
jail since year 2005 seeking parity with coaccused - while considering the nature of
involvement of the accused in the crimes and
since he is no doubt to be named as 'history
sheeter', & become interSt. Mafia - court afraid
to extend the benefit of parity - consequently,
the bail application is rejected.
(Para - 32, 34, 37)

(B) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code1 1973 - Section - 439, - Indian Penal
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
279
Code,1860 - Sections 120-B, 419, 420,
467, 46 &, 471: - Cognizance of mis-utilization
of Vidhayak Nidhi - Court find that - MLAs are
not monarch or king of that area who can throw
away or whimsicaly distribute the Vidhayak
Nidhi as larges - Vidhayak Nidhi is a hard earned
money of a tax payer not a private fiefdom any
MLA - St. govt. is requested to constitute a
committee under the leadership of Speaker of
Assembly with three senior bureaucrats to audit
the Vidhayak Nidhi of individual MLA and its
utilization - directions issued accordingly.
(Para - 22, 36)

(C) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 439, - Indian Penal
Code,1860 - Section 120-B, 419, 420, 467,
468, 471: - Expedite disposal of trials -
Applicant who is claiming himself to be a
popular public figure & elected MLA from six
consecutive time - this is most unfortunate and
ugly face of our democracy where a person who
has facing various criminal trials about 58 cases
in his 54 years of life and become inter-St. Mafia
- all these things if taken cumulatively goes to
show that he is a simply canker to the society -
Trial court directed to take up the aforesaid
sessions trials on the top most priority and
decide without consuming further time -
directions issued accordingly. (Para - 25, 32)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Molana Mohammad Amid Rashadi Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. (2012 AIR SC (Crl.) 469),

2. Ashwani Oberoi Vs St. of Har. (SLP (Crl.) No.
8695/2021 decided on 02.03.2022),

3. Criminal Bail Application No. 23138/2010
decided on 28.08.2010,

4. Harjeet Singh Vs Indrajeet Singh @ Inder &
anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 883/2021 decided on
24.08.2021),

5. Gudikanti Narashimhulu Vs Public Prosecutor,
High Court A.P. (1978 (1) SCC 240),

6. Ash Mohd. Vs L. Shiv Raj Singh (2012 (9) SCC 446),

7. Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar (2020 (2) SCC 118),

8. Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (Crl. Appeal
No. 448/2021 decided on 23.08.2021),

9. Neeru Yadav Vs St. of U.P. (Crl. Appeal No.
1272/2015 decided on 29.09.20215),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Upendra Upadhayay,
counsel
for
the
applicant,
Sri
M.C.Chaturvedi, learned A.A.G. assisted
by Shri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned
A.G.A. for State and perused the records of
the present bail application.

2. Bail application on behalf of
applicant and its counter affidavit as well as
rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged
between the parties and matter is ripe-up
for final submissions.

3. Applicant, Mokhtar Ansari is
facing prosecution in Case Crime No.
185/2021 U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B I.P.C. Police Station-Sarai Lakhansi,
District Mau during pendency of trial.
Though the applicant is behind the bars
since 25.10.2005 in other cases and in the
present case B-Warrant has been served on
16.06.2021.

4.
The
applicant
deserves
no
introduction in the State of U.P. on account
of his alleged ''Robin Hood' image in Hindi
speaking States of India. He is the harden
and habitual offender, who is in sphere of
crime since 1986 but surprisingly, he has
managed not a single conviction against
him. It is indeed astounding and more
amusing angle of the issue, that a person
having more than 50+ criminal cases to his
credit of various varieties, has managed his
affairs in such a way that he has not
received a single conviction order against
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
him. Infact it is slur and challenge to the
judicial system that such a dreaded and
''White Collored' criminal in the field of
crime undefeated and unabetted.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

5. On 24.04.2021 one Ram Singh
lodged a present FIR at police station Sarai
Lakhansi, District Mau under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against
five named accused persons including the
applicant who was at relevant point of time
was a sitting MLA though in jail.

6. The gravamen of the FIR is, that
relying upon the inquiry report by a Circle
Officer, Mau that on Anand Yadav son of
Baijnath Yadav, his father Baijnath Yadav
son of Khuddi Yadav, Sanjay Sagar and the
present applicant were named in the FIR. It
was surfaced during investigation, that at
Arazi No. 1109 having area 0.064 Hect.
and Arazi No. 1449 having area 0.196
Hect.at village Sarwan, District Mau, a
proposal was floated to construct a brand
new school for the young of that area.
Baijnath Yadav and his son as per the
allegation of the FIR, approached interstate
Mafia No. 191 Mokhtar Anasari and his
associate Sanjay Sagar son of Chandra Dev
Ram to release Rs. 25 lakhs from his
"Vidhayak
Nidhi".
Accordingly,
this
amount was disbursed for constructing the
alleged school namely, ''Guru Jagdish
Singh
Baijnath
Pahalwan
Uchhatar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sarwan' in three
installments
during
2012-2015.
These
named accused persons conspired in
sending a forged proposal and get and
agricultural plot allotted in the name of
wife of Baijnath Yadav, over which the
proposed school to be constructed. In the
said inquiry report, it was surfaced that,
there was no school was found over above
Arazis' and Arazi No. 1109 having area of
0.032 Hect. was encircled by boundary
wall whereas in the remaining part there
was a banana grove over it. Similarly, at
Arazi No. 1449 having aread of 0.196 Hect.
standing crops of wheat was found and as
such the entire sum of public money to the
tune of Rs. 25 Lakhs were swindled and
digested by the named accused persons.

7. Thus it was requested to lodged and
FIR under the appropriate sections of IPC
against the named accused persons.

8. Under these factual backdrop of the
case, Shri Upendra Upadhayay, learned
counsel for the applicant, before addressing
the court on merits, have tried to glorify the
character of applicant-Mokhtar Ansari skyhigh by making a mention, that the
applicant was born in year 1964, now he is
58 years of age and a popular and dashing
political figure of Eastern U.P.. From
March 1996 to 2022, he was elected as
M.L.A. for six consecutive times on the
tickets of different political parties. In fact,
Sri Upadhaya tried to impress upon the
Court, that he was an indispensable
political personality in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. But unfortunately, he is in jail
since 25.10.2005 in connection with
different cases to his credit. This by itself is
dichotomous situation that a popular
political personality is in jail since October,
2005. One can easily gauge his nature and
character, whether he is a popular political
personality or he is a biggest nuisance to
the society, who is in jail since 2005 and
despite of this he is winning the elections
one after the other.

9. It is contended by the counsel for
the applicant that, a politically motivated
FIR has been lodged at the instance of
changed political set-up in the State of U.P.
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
281
and
for
the offence
allegedly
have
committed by him in year 2015. The
present
FIR
was
got
registered
on
24.04.2021 i.e. say about seven years of its
occurrence. Thus, there is an apparent,
inordinate delay delay of almost 7 years in
lodging the present FIR without any cogent
explanation for the same.

10. Sri Upadhyay, learned counsel for
the applicant further urged that the only sin
committed by the applicant that he wants to
spread the light of education in the area
among the youth, thus he has released Rs.
10.00 lakhs during FY; 2012-2013, Rs. 10.00
lacs during F.Y.- 2013-14 and Rs. 5.00 lakhs
during F.Y. 2014-15 from his "Vidhayak
Nidhi". The most interesting feature of this
release of amount is that, when he has made
these recommendations of aforesaid funds
from his "Vidhayak Nidhi", he was remain
behind the bars. On this Sri Upadhyaya,
learned counsel for the applicant has floated
very innocent & innocuous argument that at
relevant point of time i.e. during 2012-2015,
the applicant was serving his incarceration
and as such he is not in position to physically
verify the construction in the school in
question and check the working of State
Officials, namely, C.D.O, Tehsildar etc.. In
fact, he as relying upon the report given by
these officials to him and factually speaking
these officials were his eyes and ears. In the
entire prosecution, there is not a single iota of
evidence, which could be termed as hatching
the criminal conspiracy with other co-accused
persons. The allegations that the applicant
was in hand in gloves with the co-accused
persons, is presumptive in nature that he has
conspired with the co-accused persons in
siphoning Rs. 25 lakhs of public money from
his ''Vidhayak Nidhi".

11. It was further argued that Sri
Anand Yadav and Sri Baij Nath, the coaccused persons were already enlarged on
bail and thus applying the principles of
parity, the applicant too deserves to be
bailed out.

12. It is further contended by the
counsel for the applicant that the innocent
applicant has only recommended the
aforesaid amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to be
released in favour of co-accused persons
for constructing school in his political
constituency, so as to spread the education
amongst the young ones. This is a work of
public interest, which could be released
from "Vidhayak Nidhi".

13. It is further urged that the charge
sheet has been submitted in the matter and
nothing more to be investigated into the
matter
and
thus
in
the
fitness
of
circumstances, the applicant may be
released on bail. And lastly it is argued by
learned counsel for the applicant that all the
sections fasten upon the applicant are
triable by the Magistrate and trivial in
nature and thus he should be released.

14. Sri Upendra Upadhayay, learned
counsel for the applicant was aware of the
fact that criminal credential of the applicant
would come in his way, thus applicant has
relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
MOLANA
MOHAMMAD AMID RASHADI VS.
STATE
OF
U.P.
AND
OTHERS,
Criminal Appeal No. 159/2012 decided on
16.01.2012 and reported in 2012 AIR
SC(Crl.) 469 in which THE Hon'ble Apex
Court has opined;

"It is not disputed and highlighted
that the 2nd respondent is sitting Member
of Parliament, facing several criminal
cases. It is not disputed that none of cases
ended into acquittal for want of proper
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witnesses for pending trial. As opined by
the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal
antecedents,
claim
of
2nd
respondent cannot be rejected. In other
hands it is duty of the court to find out the
role of accused in case in which he has
been charged and other circumstances such
as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the court etc."

Shri Upadhayay further relied
upon another judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in ASHWANI OBEROI VS. STATE
OF HARYANA, SLP (Crl.) No. 8695/2021
decided on 02.03.2022 in which it has been
held that:-

"Dr. Monika Gusain, learned
counsel appearing for the state submitted
that the petitioner is the master mind.
Innocent people were cheated. He was
absconding for some time. There is a
likelihood that he might abscond if he is
released on bail and would tamper with the
evidence.

We are of the considered view
that the petitioner is entitled to be released
on bail as charges have been framed and
there is no likelihood of the trial being
completed soon. Also there is no dispute
that the other accused have been released
on
bail.
The
apprehension
of
the
prosecution about the petitioner fleeing
from justice or making himself scarce
during the course of trial, can be taken
care of by imposing conditions".

Lastly, Shri Upadhayay relied
upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of
this
Court
in
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 23138/2010 decided on
28.08.2010 and Hon'ble Shri Shrikant
Tripathi.J., (as the then Judge of this Court)
opined that:-

"Learned AGA, on the other
hand, submitted that the applicant has a
criminal history of 31 cases, out of which 3
cases are under Section 302 I.P.C.

The learned counsel for the
applicant, in reply, submitted that bail
prayer cannot be refused only on the
ground of criminal history specially when
there is no evidence regarding involvement
of the applicant in entering into the alleged
criminal conspiracy and he was in jail on
the date of occurrence.

Keeping in view the nature of
offence and evidence, complicity of the
accused, the severity of punishment and
submissions of the learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned AGA, I am of the
view that the applicant has made out a case
for bail".

15. Per-contra, Shri Ratnendu Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A. has filed a detailed
counter affidavit with a primary thrust of
his arguments, that the criminal antecedents
of the applicant in which it has been stated
that
the
applicant
has
got
criminal
antecedents of number of cases lodged in
different District viz, Ghazipur, Varanasi,
Lucknow,
Agra,
Mau,
Azamgarh,
Barabanki as well as in the State of Punjab,
attaching plethora of criminal cases of
different texture and gravity.

16. It was candidly come out during
inquiry that the school in question was not
constructed over plot no. 1109 or 1449 over
which, it was proposed to be constructed. It
is also come out that the said amount from
"Vidhayak Nidhi" was used for different
purposes
or
expansion/renovation/extension of some
other pre-existing school. This fact has find
force when the Coordinate Bench of this
Court while granting bail to Baij Nath
Yadav/co-accused,
having
Bail
Application No. 9866/2022 in which Shri
Upendra
Upadhayay
was
counsel,
succeeded in getting bail by making
submission/contentions as follows: -
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
283

"It is submitted that the applicant
remain as Village Pradhan for 3 terms, he
established 3 schools on his land and the
name of the school were recorded in the
revenue entries. At the relevant point of
time extension/expansion of the school
building was required therefore, the
request was made to the then local M.L.A.
for sanction of certain amount for raising
construction/expansion
of
the
school
building. The amount was disbursed in 3
installments from the local M.L.A. funding
during year 2013-2015. The applicant has
got no relation with co-accused Sanjay
Sagar and the then M.L.A."

From this, it is abundantly clear
that no new construction was ever raised
for any school for which the amount of Rs.
25 lakhs were taken, but was utilized for
pre-existing structure in the name of new
school.

17. It is worthwhile to mention here
that Baij Nath Yadav is father of Anand
Yadav (another co-accused). Sri Anand
Yadav is the District President of "Qaumi
Ekta Dal" and the applicant Mokhtar
Ansari is its Founder Figure of this political
entity, therefore, he urged that the circle is
complete, when the applicant Mokhtar
Ansari obliged his own District President
of the political group, Anand Yadav, coaccused who in order to expand the preexisting school, utilized the public fund
from "Vidhayak Nidhi".

18. It is clear-cut case of conflict of
interest, whereby the applicant in the
capacity of sitting M.L.A. have utilized the
public property in the shape of "Vidhayak
Nidhi" to his own worker/President of
which the applicant is the Founding Figure
for expanding/extending the school in
question and not for establishing the new
school for which the amount was disbursed.

19. The Court during arguments on
13.05.2022 has sought a report from
District Magistrate, Mau to have a physical
verification of school and to give his report
after giving number of questionnaire to the
District Magistrate, Mau. The Court is in
receipt of reply of District Magistrate, Mau
and have perused the same. From the
report, it is clear that the school in question
i.e. "Guru Jagdish Singh Baij Nath
Pahalwan,
Uchchatar
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Inter College, Sarwan," Tehsil
Sadar, District Mau as per the khatauni of
Fasli Year 1429 - 1434, situates at Khata
No. 60 and 190 and Gata No. 797
(Minjumla),
having
total
area
0.173
hectares, as against Arazi No. 1109 and
1449 for which the alleged school was
proposed and the amount from "Vidhayak
Nidhi" was disbursed by the applicant
during the FY 2012-2013. Smt. Sarita
Singh is Principal of the college, whereas
Baij Nath Yadav is Manager of the school.
From the entire report, it is not clear that
(1) As to whether any new school was
proposed over Araji No. 1109 and 1449 (?)
and if it is not so, then how this public
money was used in expanding in preexisting school, which was not at all
proposed.

20. On these submissions, Shri
Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA
submits that it is clear cut case of siphoning
of the public amount by a reckless M.L.A.
just to oblige his own worker, Anand
Yadav, for the reasons best known to the
applicant. It was argued that it seems to be
more of domestic affair between the
applicant and Anand Yadav while utilizing
the said amount of Rs. 25 lakhs.
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21.

After
hearing
the
rival
submissions, it seems that though the
applicant was in jail during relevant point
of time, but co-accused Anand Yadav has
acted as his personal worker, came to him
and the applicant being sitting M.L.A. in
order to swindle the public money without
any verification in a most casual and
callous way, have directed the concerned to
release the sum in favour of Baij Nath
Yadav
and
his
son
Anand
Yadav.
Ostensibly they used for constructing a new
school, which in fact has never seen the
light of the day.

There are particular guidelines for
utilization of "Vidhayak Nidhi" dated 10th
April, 2002. This court has seen these
guidelines and the Court in the firm opinion
that the covenants of these guidelines were
thrashed and squeezed by the applicant
with impunity.

22. The "Vidhayak Nidhi" is not a
private fiefdom of any M.L.A. or his
personal property. It is an hard earned
money of the tax payers and cannot be
permitted to utilize or drain in a casual and
capricious
way.
Recently
the
State
Government has enhanced the alleged
"Vidhayak Nidhi" to the tune of Rs. 5.00
Crores. The M.L.A.s are the public
representative and the amount entrusted to
them that they would utilized their
"Vidhayak Nidhi" discretely with utmost
care and only for the purpose and objective
for which it was released. The M.L.A. are
not monarch or king of that area, who can
throw away or whimsically distribute the
"Vidhayak Nidhi" as larges. The Court has
got no objection in raising the amount but
expects from the Government to at-least
have
a
double
check
volve
in
its
disbursement and utilization only for
"public good". The State Government must
create an ''in-house mechanism' to have a
close vigil, that this "Vidhayak Nidhi"
should be used only for ''public purpose'
and there shall not be any siphoning or
seepage to subserve anybody's personal or
vested interest. The member of the in-house
mechanism the modalities mentioned in
paragraph 36 of the judgment may be taken
care of.

23. The way and manner in which Rs.
25.00 lacs were handed over to his own
alleged District President- Anand Yadav,
speaks volumes about the applicant, which
need not be elaboration. Interestingly, the
counsel for the applicant has pleaded
innocence, that at a relevant point of time,
the
applicant
was
serving
out
his
incarceration and thus he was not in
position
to
physically
verify
the
departmental work. This argument per-se is
very innocent but unfortunately do not
contain any leg to stand over it. Million
dollor question remain unanswered, that if
a sitting MLA is releasing the sum from his
"Vidhayak Nidhi" to his own party
President, it is the MLA concerned should
be accountable for any misfeasance.

Extending the amount to his own Party
President, Anand Yadav "Qaumi Ekta
Dal",
who
utilized
the
amount
in
expending the pre-existing school. This by
itself is sufficient to question the intention,
motive and its expected outcome.

24. Now coming to yet another aspect
of the issue i.e. criminal antecedent of the
applicant. As mentioned in the opening
paragraphs of this order that the applicant
in this world of crime since 1986 and as per
his own admission mentioned in the
Rejoinder Affidavit (Annexure No. RA-1)
that at present he is under trial in as many
as in 21 criminal cases in the various
Sessions Division at Mau, Ghazipur,
Varanasi, Azamgarh, Lucknow, Barabanki,
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
285
Agra and Mataur, Roop Nagar (Punjab).
Thus, it is clear that he is the blooded,
harden, habitual offender against whom
number of criminal cases are pending. The
cases in tabular form is given herein below:
-

Sl.
No.
Police
Statio
n &
Distri
ct
Crime No.
& Court
Case No.
Secti
ons
State
of case
and
Court
1.
South
tola
Mau
399/2010,
S.T.
No.
130
of
2010
302,
307,
120B
& 34
IPC,
25/2
7
Arms
Act
& &
CLA
*Final
Argum
ent
*
MPM
LA
Court,
Alld.
2.
South
tola
Mau
04/2020,
Sessions
Case
No.
is yet to be
marked
419,
420,
467,
368,
471,
120B
IPC
and
30
Arms
Act
* Bail
out
*
Charg
e
sheete
d case
* File
Transf
erred
to
MPM
LA
Court,
Mau
for
trail
3.
Sarai
lakhan
si,
Mau
0185/2021
Sessions
Case
No.
is yet to be
marked
419,
420,
467,
468,
471,
* Bail
rejecte
d
by
Sessio
ns
120B
, 427
IPC
and 7
CLA
Act
&
136(
2)
Repr
esent
ation
of
Peop
les
Act
1950
Court,
pendin
g
in
High
Court
Allaha
bad
*
Charg
e
sheete
d case
* File
Transf
erred
to
MPM
LA
Court,
Mau
for
trail
4.
Sarai
lakhan
si,
Mau
0008/2022
3(1)
U.P.
Gang
ster
Act
*New
FIR
registe
red
on05.0
1.2022
5.
South
tola
Mau
055/2021
Sessions
Case
No.
is yet to be
marked
3(1)
U.P.
Gang
ster
Act
*Bail
rejecte
d
by
Sessio
ns
court
*
Charg
e
sheete
d case
*File
Transf
erred
to
MPM
LA
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court,
Mau
for
trail
6.
South
tola
Mau
891/2010,
S.T.
No.
62000/201
2
3(1)
U.P.
Gang
ster
Act
*Fram
ing of
charge
s.
*MPM
LA
Court
Mau
for
trial
7.
Moha
mmad
abad
Ghazi
pur
1182/2009
, S.T. No.
10 of 2010
307,
506,
120B
IPC
*
Eviden
ce
*Bail
out
*MPM
LA
court
Ghazi
pur for
trial
8.
Kotwa
li
Ghazi
pur
192/1996,
S.T.
No.
620007/20
12
3(1)
U.P.
Gang
ster
Act
*Bail
out
*Evide
ce
*MPM
LA
Court
Ghazi
pur for
trial
9.
Moha
madab
ad
Ghazi
pur
0121/1021
,
Session
case no is
yet to be
marked
21/2
5
Arms
Act
*Pendi
ng bail
applic
ation
in
CJM
court
*
Charg
e
sheete
d case
* File
transfe
rred to
MPM
LA
court
Ghazi
pur for
trial
10.
Moha
madab
ad
Ghazi
pur
1051/2007
, S.T. No.
6200090/2
012
3(1)
U.P.
Gang
ster
Act
*
Eviden
ce
*Bail
out
*MPM
LA
court
Ghazi
pur for
trial
11.
Karan
da
Ghazi
pur
482/2010,
S.T.
No.
557/2012
3(1)
U.P.
Gang
ster
Act
*
Eviden
ce
*Bail
out
*MPM
LA
court
Ghazi
pur for
trial
12.
Moha
madab
ad
Ghazi
pur &
Varan
asi
263/1990,
S.T.
NO.
22/2005
420,
467,
468,
120B
IPC
and
7/13
Prev
entio
n of
Corr
uptio
*Bail
out.
*Evide
nce
*MPM
LA
court
Varan
asi
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
287
n Act
13.
Bhelu
pur
Varan
asi
377/1997
S.T.
No.
3541/2011
506
IPC
*Bail
out.
*Evide
nce
*MPM
LA
court
Varan
asi
14.
Chetga
nj
Varan
asi
229/1991,
S.T.
No.
265/2007
147,
148,
149,
302
IPC
*Bail
out.
*Evide
nce
*MPM
LA
court
Varan
asi
15.
Tarwa
Azam
garh
20/2014,
S.T.
No.
6200195/2
018
302,
307,
147,
148,
149,
120B
, 506
IPC
and 7
CLA
*Bail
out.
*Evide
nce
*MPM
LA
court
Azam
garh
16.
Tarwa
Azam
garh
0160/2020
, Sessions
case no. is
yet to be
marked
3(1)
U.P.
Gang
ster
Act
*Pendi
ng bail
*
Charg
e
sheete
d
*
Case/T
rial in
Specia
l court
Gangst
er Act,
Azam
garh.
17.
Hazrat
ganj,
Luckn
ow
236/2020
120B
,
419,
420,
467,
468,
471
IPC
and
Secti
on 3
of
Prev
entio
n
from
Dam
age
to
Publi
c
Prop
erty
Act
*
Charg
e
sheete
d case
* CJM
court
Luckn
ow for
copies
18.
Alamb
agh,
Luckn
ow
66/2000,
S.T.
No.
167/2019
147,
336,
353,
506
IPC
*Bail
out
*
Eviden
ce
*MPM
LA
court
Luckn
ow
19.
Kotwa
li
Baraba
nki
0369/2021
, Crl. Case
No.
02/2021
419,
420,
467,
468,
471,
120B
,
177,
506
IPC
and 7
* Bail
pendin
g
in
High
Court
Luckn
ow.
*
Frami
ng of
charge
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CLA
s
*
MPM
LA
Court
Baraba
nki
20.
Jagdis
hpura,
Agra
60/1999,
S.T.
No.
1604/2006
420,
419,
109,
120B
IPC
*Bail
out
*Fram
ing of
charge
s
*MPM
LA
court
Agra
21.
Matau
r
Rupna
gar,
Punjab
State
05/2019
386,
506
IPC
*
Police
Station
*CJM,
Mohal
i

25. Thus, it is clear that as per own
admission by the applicant there are as
many as 21 cases are pending against the
applicant in which the applicant is facing a
trial. The trial court are directed to take up
the aforesaid Sessions Trials on the top
most
priority
and
decide
without
consuming further time.

26. The above mentioned is a rich
criminal horoscope of the applicant on
which the applicant can boast and claim
himself to be a popular public figure, who
was elected as MLA for the six consecutive
time. As mentioned above, this is a most
unfortunate and ugly face of our democracy
where a person on one hand facing almost
two dozen Sessions Trials and on the other
hand the public is electing him as their
representative for six consecutive times. It
is really uphill task to adjudicate, as to
whether he is really a popular public
figure? Or his nuisance value, which are
giving dividends to him?

27. At thus juncture Sri Shri Ratnendu
Singh, learned A.G.A. has cited number of
decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court whereby
the Hon'ble Apex Court has come out
heavily upon such type of spotted public
figures.

28. In the recent judgment in the case
of HARJEET SINGH VS. INDERPREET
SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER,
Criminal Appeal No. 883/2021 decided on
24th August, 2021, has cancelled the bail
order of Inderpreet Singh granted by High
Court holding therein that High Court has
committed a grave error in releasing
Inderpreet Singh on bail. Hon'ble Apex
Court in paragraph no. 12 of the judgment
"antecedent of respondent no.1 herein the
threat perception to the applicant and his
family members were not considered by the
High Court and the High Court kept his
eyes
shut
in
releasing
the
applicant/appellant when he was in jail, he
has committed yet another offence and as
soon as he came out, he again got involved
in yet another murder case.

29. The concerned applicant/appellant
was having criminal history of only 4
criminal cases, even then no mercy was
shown to him and he was sent back to jail.
But in the instant case, the applicant is a
decorated criminal of 21 criminal cases
tried by different Sessions Division in
different districts, is expecting bail.

30. While canceling the bail to such
type of graded offenders, the court has
relied upon the judgment of GUDIKANTI
NARASIMHULU
VS.
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, High Court of A.P.,
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
289
(1978)1 SCC Page 240, the court observed
and held that:-

"The deprivation of freedom by
refusal of bail is not for a punitive purpose,
but for bifocal interests of justice. The
nature of charge is a vital factor and
nature of evidence is also pertinent. The
severity of the punishment to which the
accused may be liable if convicted also
bears upon the issue. Another relevant
factor is whether the course of justice
would be thwarted by him who seeks the
benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be
freed for the time being. The Court has also
to consider the likelihood of the applicant
interfering with the witnesses for the
prosecution or otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is further observed
that it is rational to enquire into the
antecedents of the man who is applying for
bail to find out whether he has a bad
record,
particularly
a
record
which
suggests that he is likely to commit serious
offences while on bail".

In yet another case of ASH
MOHAMMAD VS.L SHIV RAJ SINGH
(2012)9 SCC 446, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has evaluated this issue from different
angle and have opined in paragraphs 18 and
19 observed and held as under:-

18. It is also to be kept in mind
that
individual
liberty
cannot
be
accentuated to such an extent or elevated to
such a high pedestal which would bring in
anarchy or disorder in the society. The
prospect of greater justice requires that
law and order should prevail in a civilized
milieu. True it is, there can be no
arithmetical
formula
for
fixing
the
parameters in precise exactitude but the
adjudication should express not only
application of mind but also exercise of
jurisdiction on accepted and established
norms. Law and order in a society protect
the established precepts and see to it that
contagious crimes do not become epidemic.
In an organized society the concept of
liberty basically requires citizens to be
responsible
and
not
to
disturb
the
tranquility and safety which every wellmeaning person desires. Not for nothing J.
Oerter stated:

"Personal liberty is the right to
act without interference within a limits of
the law."

19. Thus analyzed, it is clear that
though liberty is a greatly cherished value
in the life of an individual, it is a controlled
and restricted one and no element in the
society can act in a manner by consequence
of which the life or liberty of others is
jeopardized, for the rational collective does
not countenance an anti-social or anticollective act."

In the case of MAHIPAL VS.
RAJESH KUMAR (2020)2 SCC 118,
where
the Court in its paragraph no.12 observed
that:-

"12.
The
determination
of
whether a case is fit for grant of bail
involves the balancing of numerous factors,
among which the nature of the offence, the
severity of the punishment and prima facie
view of the involvement of the accused are
important. No straitjacket formula exists
for courts to assess an application for the
grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of
assessing whether case is fit for the grant
of bail, the court is not required to enter
into a detailed analysis of the evidence on
record to establish beyond reasonable
doubt the commission of the crime by the
accused. That is a matter for trial.
However, the Court is required to examine
whether there is a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence and on
a balance of the considerations involved,
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the continued custody of the accused sub
serves the purpose of the criminal justice
system. Where bail has been granted by a
lower court, an appellate court must be
slow to interfere and ought to be guided by
the principles set out for the exercise of the
power to set aside bail.

In the recent judgment in the case
of SUDHA SINGH VS. THE STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER,
Criminal Appeal No. 448/2021 decided on
23rd April, 2021, its paragraph nos. 7,8 and
12 are quoted herein below: -

7. It is also contended by the
appellant that the grant of bail in a routine
manner to gangsters, has had an adverse
effect in the past, upon the law and order
situation. The appellant cites the example
of a person who was prosecuted in
connection with 64 criminal cases which
included cases of murders, offences of
dacoity, criminal intimidation, extortion
and offences under the U.P. Gangster case,
allegedly 8 policemen were killed and
many grievously injured. Therefore, the
appellant contends that courts must be
extremely careful in releasing of history
sheeters who have been charged with
serious offences like murder, rape or other
kinds of bodily harms several times.

8. We find in this case that the
High Court has overlooked several aspects,
such as the potential threat to witnesses,
forcing the trial court to grant protection.
It is needless to point out that in cases of
this nature, it is important that courts do
not enlarge an accused on bail with a
blinkered vision by just taking into account
only the parties before them and the
incident in question. It is necessary for
courts to consider the impact that release
of such persons on bail will have on the
witnesses yet to be examined and the
innocent members of the family of the
victim who might be the next victims.

12. There is no doubt that liberty
is important, even that of a person charged
with crime but it is important for the courts
to recognize the potential threat to the life
and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such
accused is released on bail.

31. At this juncture Sri Ratendru
Kuma Singh, learned AGA drawn the
attention of the Court to paragraph 6 to the
counter affidavit in which, as per the
Government Dosier as many as 54 criminal
cases to his credit, the district and State
wise breakup of the criminal case are given
herein below: -

DISTRICT- GHAZIPUR
Sl.
No.
Case
Crime
NO.
Under
Sections
Police
Station/Di
strict
1.
493/05
302,
506,
120B IPC
Mohammd
abad
2.
589/05
302,
504,
506, 120B
IPC
Bhanwar
Col
3.
169/86
302 IPC
Mohamma
dabad
4.
266/90
467,
468,
420, 120B
IPC

5.
172/91
147,
323,
504,
506
IPC
Mohamma
dabad
6.
237/96
136(2), 130,
135, 136(1)
Public
Property
Act & 384,
506 IPC
Mohamma
dabad
7.
1182/09 307,
506,
120B IPC
Mohamma
dabad
8.
1051/07 3(1)
U.P.
Gangster
Act
Mohamma
dabad
9.
482/10
3(1)
U.P. Karanda
8 All. Mokhtar Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
291
Gangster
Act
10.
361/09
302,
120
IPC
&
7
C.L. Act
Karanda
11.
NCR
No.
219/78
506 IPC
Saidpur
12.
NCR
No.
19/97
506 IPC
Saidpur
13.
106/88
302 IPC
Kotwali
14.
682/90
143,
506
IPC
Kotwali
15.
399/90
147,
148,
149,
307
IPC
Kotwali
16.
44/91
302,
506
IPC
Kotwali
17.
165/96
147,
148,
149,
307,
332,
353,
506,
504
IPC
&
7C.Lact
Kotwali
18.
834/95
353,
504,
506 IPC
Kotwali
19.
284/96
3(2)
NSA
Act
Kotwali
20.
33/99
3(2)
NSA
Act
Kotwali
21.
192/96
3(1)
U.P.Ganster
Act
Kotwali
22.
121/21
21/25 Arms
Act
Mohamma
dabad
DISTRICT- VARANASI
1.
58/98
3 NSA Act
Bhelupur
2.
17/99
506 IPC
Bhelupur=
Note: In above mentioned case crime
number in question, First Information
Report has been lodged by Naveen
Rungata
son
of
Nand
Kishore
R3.ungata.
3.
285/17
302 IPC
Bhelupur
4.
19/97
364A, 365
IPC
Bhelupur
Note: - In above mentioned case crime
number in question is related with
abduction for ransom and in this case
one Sri Nand Kishore Rungata has
been abducted, ransom was given but
he has not been recovered dead or alive
till date.
5.
229/91
147,
148,
149,
302
IPC
Chetganj
6.
410/88
147,
148,
149,
302,
307 IPC
Cantt.
DISTRICT- LUCKNOW
1.
209/02
3/7/25
Arms Act
Hazratganj
Note:- In aforesaid case crime number
in question is related to recovery of
''Katar' made in Switzerland, one
vernacular,
telescope,
139
live
cartridges
of
375
bore,
20
live
cartridges of 7.57 bore, 21 cartridges of
0.22 bore, 2 cartridges of 12 bore.
2.
106/99
307,
302,
120B IPC
Hazratganj
Note:- In aforesaid case crime number
in question is regarding the murder of
Jail
Superintendent,
Sri
Ramkant
Tiwari and attempting to murder
driver Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh.
3.
91A/04
147,
148,
149,
307,
427 IPC
Cantt.
Note:- In aforesaid case crime number
lodged by Sri Krishan Nand Rai on
13.01.2004 and ultimately Sri Krishna
Nand Rai was eliminated.
4.
428/99
2/3
Gangster
Act
Hazratganj
5.
126/99
506 IPC
Krishna
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nagar
6.
66/2000 147,
336,
353,
506
IPC
Alambagh
7.
236/20
468,
471,
120B
IPC
& Section 3
of Damages
of
Public
Property
Act
Hazratganj
DISTRICT-CHANDAULI
1.
294/91
302,
307
IPC
Mughalsar
ai/Chanda
uli
DISTRICT-AGRA
1.
60/99
419,
420,
109, 120B
IPC
Jagdishpur
a
Note:- In the above noted case the
accused applicant was caught red
handed while he was using the mobile
hand set within the premises of jail.
DISTRICT-SONEBHADRA
1.
121/97
364A
Anpara
Note:- In this case Sri Deepak Kumar
Varshney son of Sri Dinesh Chandra
(General Manager) U.P. Electricity
Board, Obra has been abducted for
ransom and till date he has not been
recovered dead or alive.
DISTRICT-MAU
1.
808/04
147,
148,
149,
393,
307,
504,
506,
342
IPC
Kotwali
2.
1580/05 147,
148,
149,302,
435,
436,
427, 153A
IPC
Kotwali
3.
1866/09 147,
148,
149,302,
Kotwali
307, 120B,
404, 325/34
IPC
&
7
CLAct
4.
399/10
302,
307,
120B,
34
IPC & 7 CL
Act
&
25/27 Arms
Act
Dakshin
Tola
5.
891/10
3(1)
Gangster
Act
Dakshin
Tola
6.
185/21
419,
420,
467,
468,
471, 120B
IPC
Sarai
Lakhansi
(present
one)
7.
55/21
3(1) of U.P.
Gangster
Act
Dakshin
Tola
8.
4/20
30
Arms
Act
and
Sections
419,
420,
467,
468,
471, 120 B
IPC
Dakshin
Tola
NEW DELHI
1.
456/93
364A, 365,
387 IPC
Tilak
Marg
2.
508/93
24/54/59
Arms Act &
S. Tada
K.G. Marg
STATE OF PUNJAB
1.
5/19
386/506
IPC
Mathaur,
Mohali
Note:- present accused applicant was
confined in Banda Jail as a prisoner,
during the period of confinement in
jail, the present accused applicant
demanded Rs.