Latest news with #UPGangstersAct
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court warns governments against invoking stringent laws as tool of harassment
Representative Image NEW DELHI: Cautioning govts not to invoke stringent laws like UP Gangsters Act "as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play", Supreme Court has quashed an FIR lodged under the Act against people taking part in a demonstration after a communal flare-up arising out of a controversial social media post targeting a religious group, reports Amit Anand Choudhary. It said the accused were arrested and booked under various provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop owned by a person who had put an "incendiary" social media post. Supreme Court said the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and there was no need for lodging a second FIR against them by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. Noting the stringent law was invoked 13 days after an accused's daughter-in- law filed nomination for chairmanship of Nagar Panchayat Khargupur (UP), a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "This timing lends credence to their contention the Act may have been weaponised for extraneous considerations. " Allowing the plea of Lal Mohammad and other accused, the bench said the Act was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates, and invoking the law "based on a single incident of communal violence... is a significant departure from its legislative purpose". It said mere involvement of the accused in a demonstration after the communal flare-up, however serious, did not transform the participants into a 'gang' without evidence of organised and continuous criminal activity. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo "The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires even greater significance when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. While the state has broad discretion in criminal prosecution, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, based on relevant considerations, and in conformity with the statutory purpose. The power conferred upon the state cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play," said Justice Mehta, who penned the judgment. "It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards, must be invoked based on evidence that meets a threshold of credibility and substantiality. The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity, demonstrating actual probability of involvement rather than mere theoretical possibility. When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions."
United News of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC allows Abbas Ansari to stay 3 nights at Ghazipur home while visiting constituency
New Delhi, May 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday modified the interim bail conditions of Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari, permitting him to stay at his residence in Ghazipur for up to three nights whenever he travels to his constituency, Mau, while maintaining that the stay must not be used for public meetings. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing Ansari's plea seeking relaxation in the bail terms earlier imposed in a case registered under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 'Having regard to the difficulties being experienced by the petitioner while visiting his constituency, clause 2, para 6 of order dated 7 March is modified to the limited extent that when the petitioner visits his constituency, he may stay in the night at his residence in Ghazipur,' the bench ordered. 'Such stay shall not exceed three nights (initially), and shall not be for the purpose of any public meeting at the residence.' Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ansari, urged the court to consider the practical challenges in travelling from Lucknow where Ansari is currently required to reside to Mau, which is over 300 kilometers away. He submitted that since the grant of interim bail in March, Ansari had not left Lucknow. "Since your lordships have said I can only go to constituency, I can't go to my home... [if I go to constituency] how do I stay? Where do I stay? I will have to come back," Sibal said. Initially, Justice Kant remarked, 'It's better you don't go there for some time. Your family can come and meet you in Lucknow.' However, the bench eventually agreed to allow a limited stay at Ghazipur, subject to restrictions. When Sibal objected to the three-night cap, arguing that Ansari had complied fully with the earlier bail conditions, Justice Kant responded: 'Nobody spends this much time in constituency. Three nights we are permitting.' Earlier, ASG KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, placed a status report in sealed cover, which the Court opened and read during the proceedings. Justice Kant noted, 'There is nothing confidential. Only issue appears to be that he is not attending in some criminal proceedings and trial is getting delayed,' adding that the delays could be linked to the restrictions imposed by the bail conditions. The Court directed that a copy of the status report be shared with Ansari's counsel and asked for a reply-affidavit addressing the concerns raised in the report. Background: An FIR was registered against Abbas Ansari and others on August 31, 2024, at PS Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot, under Section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act. It was alleged that Ansari was part of a gang formed for financial and other unlawful benefits, involving extortion and intimidation. Ansari's initial bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court, directing him to approach the High Court first. After the Allahabad High Court dismissed his plea in December 2024, citing his alleged gang leadership and multiple pending cases, Ansari approached the apex court again. On March 7, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail, imposing stringent conditions including a bar on leaving Lucknow, with limited exception to visit his constituency Mau upon prior intimation to the trial court and local police. The Court also restrained him from making any public statements related to sub judice matters. The Court has now posted the matter for further hearing.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SC relaxes UP MLA Abbas Ansari's bail condition in gangsters case
The Supreme Court has modified Abbas Ansari's bail conditions in a UP Gangsters Act case, allowing him to stay in Ghazipur during visits to his Mau constituency. This relaxation comes after Ansari's lawyer argued the previous conditions made it difficult to visit his constituency. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Friday relaxed the bail condition imposed on MLA Abbas Ansari in a UP Gangsters Act case , allowing him to stay home in Ghazipur when he visits his Mau constituency. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which took the confidential report filed by the Uttar Pradesh government on record, modified the March 7 order of the court, in which several bail conditions were imposed on Ansari, son of late gangster Mukhtar Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said Ansari had not been appearing in cases against him for the past two-three Kant said the riders imposed on him could be the advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ansari, submitted neither did the MLA step out of his official Lucknow home nor did he visit his constituency in the last six months."My Mau constituency is 350 kilometer away from Lucknow. How can I visit my constituency and come back on the same day? My home at Ghazipur is just 40 kilometer away from the constituency, kindly allow me to stay during my visit to my constituency," Sibal bench allowed Ansari to stay for three nights at a stretch during his visit to the constituency but restrained him from attending any political meetings during his also allowed him to file a reply to the status report filed by the state March 7, the top court granted six weeks' interim bail to Ansari in the case and asked him to stay in his official accommodation in Lucknow and seek prior permission from authorities before visiting his constituency in bail reprieve in the case has paved the way for Ansari's release from Kasganj Jail as he was already on bail in other criminal cases against top court had asked him not to leave UP without court's prior permission and inform police authorities a day before appearing in different courts in the cases against restraining him from speaking in public on the pending cases, the top court had sought a confidential status report from the police on compliance of the bail conditions by Ansari in six was taken into custody in other criminal cases on November 4, 2022 and arrested under the gangsters Act on September 6, January 31, fearing an encounter, Ansari sought to appear virtually in the trial court proceedings in a case under the Gangsters submitted that he was appearing before the court virtually from jail in Kasganj but the facility was later top court, which had sought the UP government's response on Ansari's bail plea, denied the plea for virtual hearing on the ground that no prayer was made in the petition and asked Sibal to move the high court with the December 18, last year, the Allahabad High Court rejected Ansari's bail plea in the FIR was lodged on August 31, 2024 at Kotwali Karvi Police Station in Chitrakoot district under Section 2, 3 of UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against Ansari, Navneet Sachan, Niyaz Ansari, Faraz Khan and Shahbaz Alam Khan. They were accused of extortion and assault.
