The Supreme Court of India, on March 7, 2025, granted interim bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari in a criminal case registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh provided temporary relief to Ansari but imposed stringent conditions on his bail. The Court has explicitly directed that he cannot leave Uttar Pradesh without prior permission from the Special Judge of the Trial Court. Furthermore, he is required to stay at his official residence in Lucknow and must obtain prior approval from the Trial Court and district police before traveling to his constituency in Mau. Additionally, the Court has prohibited him from making any public statements regarding the ongoing legal proceedings.
The case will be reviewed again after six weeks, and the Court has requested a status report on the trial’s progress.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Warns: Casual Use of UP Gangsters Act Violates Civil Liberties
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Abbas Ansari, argued that his client had already been granted bail in similar cases. Sibal pointed out that a previous FIR with identical allegations was quashed by the Allahabad High Court. However, the High Court had granted the liberty to file another FIR if necessary. He further emphasized that all witnesses in the current case were police officers, implying that there was no risk of witness intimidation.
"See the chargesheet, it's very interesting. There is no other witness except the police officers...only the police officers are witnesses but for what? They say, we heard that there is a gang operating. That's all. Earlier FIR said the same thing...it was quashed on non-application of mind...All the cases that have been filed, I have got bail. This is the last one...It cannot possibly be that Courts are granting us bail after bail. Obviously, there is something wrong with the way I have been prosecuted," Sibal argued.
Sibal also stated that all evidence in the case had already been collected, making continued detention unnecessary.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the State, strongly opposed the bail plea. He contended that Ansari is an influential individual and could misuse his position to tamper with evidence and intimidate witnesses if released.
"He is a very influential person, and his influence can go to any extent. He poses a threat to society. If released, he could manipulate evidence and threaten witnesses," Nataraj submitted before the Court.
The State's counsel also requested that at least two or three key witnesses be examined before granting bail.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Issues Notice on Dharavi Redevelopment Project Tender Dispute
Court's Observations and Decision
Justice Surya Kant, responding to the State's argument, questioned how long the accused could be kept in jail without trial progress.
"How long will you keep him in jail? We don’t want to put you under unfair pressure to complete the trial within a month, but delays also lead to miscarriages of justice, especially for victims. In criminal jurisprudence, which is largely accused-oriented, we must also consider the victims' interests," he remarked.
When Sibal reiterated that all witnesses were police officers and could not be threatened, Justice Kant countered that even police officers could face intimidation. However, he noted that since the case did not involve private witnesses, the Court was not overly concerned about the possibility of witness tampering.
Considering that four co-accused in the case are still absconding, potentially causing trial delays, the Court decided to grant interim bail to Abbas Ansari. The Court also emphasized that restrictions on his movement would remain in place.
Background of the Case
The special leave petition before the Supreme Court challenged an order by the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed Abbas Ansari's bail plea on December 18, 2024. The High Court denied bail on the grounds that there was evidence of his involvement in a district-level gang, that he had prior criminal antecedents, and that there was a likelihood of him tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.
Before approaching the Supreme Court, Ansari had initially sought bail from the High Court, which rejected his request. The Supreme Court had earlier directed him to exhaust remedies at the High Court before approaching it.
Case Name: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 1091/2025
