SC adjourns hearing on Abbas Ansari’s bail plea in arms licence case

New Delhi, March 11 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned till March 18 the hearing on the bail plea of mafia don-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari’s son Abbas Ansari, who was booked by the Uttar Pradesh Police for allegedly procuring foreign guns on the pretext of shooting competitions.

Acceding to the joint request made by parties, a Bench presided over by Justice B.R. Gavai posted the matter for hearing next week.

In an earlier hearing, the Bench had allowed two weeks’ time to petitioner Abbas Ansari to file a rejoinder affidavit to the reply filed by the state government.

The top court in January this year had issued a notice on the bail plea and sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government within a period of four weeks.

The Allahabad High Court in November 2023 had rejected the regular bail application filed by Abbas, saying that he imported a pistol, a rifle and six barrels in violation of the import permit issued by the National Rifle Association of India besides importing two barrels of prohibited bores and a pistol with three spare barrels without permit.

Further, the Allahabad High Court had noted that Abbas got a revolver endorsed and had 4,431 cartridges in his possession.

A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the HC had said that Abbas — being a sitting MLA representing the Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party — was expected to respect the laws of the land more as compared to any other person.

Allegedly, Abbas had projected that he had got the arms licence that was issued in Lucknow, transferred to Delhi. However, he continued to use both the licences on two different UIDs.

In 2019, an FIR was registered against Abbas at the Mahanagar Police Station in Lucknow under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 30 of the Arms Act.

Later, the probe into the matter was handed over to the UP STF. The investigation revealed that Abbas, using Mukhtar Ansari’s international contacts, allegedly procured sophisticated weapons from a foreign country in the name of shooting competitions, but the weapons were used in illegal activities, and not in any competition.



Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.