CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

MLA Fund Misappropriation Case in Mukhtar Ansari Bail Refuses: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In denying bail to former MLA Mukhtar Ansari, who is currently incarcerated in connection with a case of misappropriation of MLA funds for 2012-13, the High Court of Allahabad referred to Ansari as a feared white-collar criminal, an interstate mafia, and a social scourge.

According to the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, Ansari is a repeat offender who began his criminal career in 1986 but managed to avoid a single conviction.

In this case, a FIR was filed against Ansari last year for the misuse of Rs. 25 lac in MLA funds that were allocated to the school, but an inspection revealed that the funds were not utilised properly at the school in question.

Ansari then filed a petition to quash the FIR, stating that he has been imprisoned for the past 17 years despite having committed no wrongdoing.

Ansari added that the District Administration is responsible for verifying the veracity of his and the schools' recommendations.

Nonetheless, the High Court noted that evidence suggests that money withdrawn from the Vidhayak Nidhi was used to expand an existing school of which Ansari is the founder, and not to establish a new school, as the money was originally intended for.

According to the Bench, if an incumbent MLA transfers funds from his Vidhayak Nidhi to the President of his own party, the MLA is liable for any wrongdoing.

Significantly, the court stated that Ansari has a lengthy criminal record, despite the fact that he has been elected six times as an MLA.

The court referred to his election as the ugliest aspect of democracy, noting that he faces prosecution in nearly two dozen cases, yet the public elected him MLA six times in a row.

The court denied bail to Ansari in this case after concluding that he is a suspect who stole public funds through Vidhiyak Nidhi and distributed them to his loved ones.

The Court requested that the UP government form a committee led by the Speaker of the Assembly and comprised of three senior bureaucrats to audit Vidhayak Nidhi and its utilisation.

D.D: 13 JUNE, 2022

Mukhtar Ansari VERSUS State of UP

Latest Legal News