New Delhi, August 15, 2025 – Former Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari has approached the Supreme Court seeking relaxation of bail conditions imposed in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Ansari, who recently lost his legislative seat following a conviction in a hate speech case, has prayed that the requirement of seeking prior permission from the trial court before travelling within India be removed.
The plea was heard yesterday by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of Ansari.
Background
Abbas Ansari, son of jailed politician Mukhtar Ansari, was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in March 2025 in connection with an FIR registered on August 31, 2024, at Kotwali Karvi Police Station, Chitrakoot. The FIR alleged that Ansari and his associates had formed a gang to pursue financial and other illicit gains, engaging in activities such as extortion, intimidation, and illegal possession of firearms.
The Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected his bail plea in December 2024. The rejection was based on his designation as a gang leader at the district level under the Gangsters Act, the pendency of multiple criminal cases against him—including a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)—and apprehensions that his release might lead to tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.
However, the Supreme Court in March 2025 took a different view, granting him interim bail subject to a set of stringent conditions. These included:
- Ansari must reside at his official residence in Lucknow.
- He may travel to his constituency Mau only with prior intimation to the trial court and the local police authorities.
- His movement outside Lucknow was subject to restrictions, aimed at preventing interference with the trial process.
In May 2025, the Court partly relaxed these conditions, permitting him to halt at his Ghazipur residence for three nights when travelling between Lucknow and Mau.
Ansari’s legal troubles deepened in July 2025, when he was disqualified as a Member of the Legislative Assembly under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This followed his conviction and two-year sentence in a hate speech case dating back to 2022. The disqualification automatically cost him his legislative seat, triggering by-elections in Mau.
Legal Context
The legal dispute before the Supreme Court now revolves around whether the bail conditions imposed in March 2025 continue to be proportionate, given Ansari’s altered circumstances.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Ansari, submitted that since his disqualification as MLA, Ansari has ceased to hold public office and no longer has access to state-provided facilities such as the official residence in Lucknow. His family, Sibal argued, has been facing hardship as their personal properties were either seized or demolished during enforcement actions by state authorities.
Sibal contended that requiring Ansari to seek repeated permission from the trial court to travel within India imposes an excessive burden, especially when he has abided by bail conditions for several months without any complaint from law enforcement. He emphasized that the principle underlying bail jurisprudence is to secure the accused’s presence at trial, not to impose punitive restrictions that function as a parallel sentence.
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by its counsel, opposed the plea. It maintained that the conditions were justified in light of Ansari’s criminal antecedents and the seriousness of charges under the Gangsters Act. The State also stressed that the requirement of trial court permission was not equivalent to a blanket travel ban. Instead, it was a safeguard designed to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of liberty.
Justice Surya Kant, while hearing the matter, remarked that the Supreme Court had not barred Ansari from travelling altogether but had merely required him to obtain prior permission. The Bench indicated that if Ansari sought further relaxation, his grievances should be properly placed before the Court with supporting documents.
Current Proceedings
In light of Sibal’s submissions, the Bench directed Ansari to file a short affidavit placing on record his present circumstances, including the loss of official accommodation, family difficulties, and compliance with earlier bail conditions. The matter has been adjourned and re-listed for next week for further hearing.
The case, titled Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) No. 1091/2025], is expected to test the balance between two competing considerations: the State’s interest in preventing alleged gangster activity and the individual’s right to personal liberty and fair treatment under bail provisions.
Broader Legal and Political Implications
The outcome of this plea could carry significant implications not just for Abbas Ansari but also for other accused individuals booked under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, a statute often criticized for its sweeping definitions and frequent invocation against political rivals.
- Judicial Approach to Bail in Gangsters Act Cases
If the Supreme Court eases Ansari’s bail conditions, it may signal a more rights-oriented approach where restrictions must directly relate to preventing misuse of liberty rather than acting as punitive measures. Conversely, if the Court maintains or even tightens conditions, it could reinforce the judiciary’s deference to state concerns in handling organized crime and gangsterism. - Representation of the People Act Consequences
Ansari’s disqualification as MLA underscores how criminal convictions—even with relatively short sentences—have immediate electoral consequences. The Court’s recognition of his changed political status may factor into its decision, as the risk of misuse of political influence arguably diminishes post-disqualification. - Intersection of Bail and Political Rights
The case also highlights the broader question of how stringent bail conditions intersect with democratic rights. Former legislators or political figures, once disqualified, may argue for parity of treatment with ordinary citizens rather than enhanced restrictions tied to their erstwhile political clout. - Family Hardship and Humanitarian Considerations
Sibal’s emphasis on the demolition of Ansari’s properties and the hardship faced by his family indicates the growing trend of defense lawyers invoking humanitarian grounds when seeking bail modifications. Courts in recent years have become more receptive to arguments about family circumstances, medical needs, and livelihood concerns.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court re-examines Abbas Ansari’s plea, the case encapsulates the tension between liberty and law enforcement in India’s criminal justice system. While the State insists on maintaining stringent safeguards against potential misuse of bail, the defense argues for relaxation in light of changed personal and political circumstances.
For Abbas Ansari, the decision will determine not only the extent of his freedom of movement but also his ability to support his family while facing trial. For the broader legal community, it may set a precedent on how courts handle bail modification requests in serious criminal cases under special statutes such as the Gangsters Act.
The hearing next week will be closely watched, as it could clarify the judiciary’s evolving stance on balancing stringent bail conditions with constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
Also Read-
Punjab and Haryana High Court imposes 5000 Rs. cost on law aspirant
Supreme Court Questions Justice Yashwant Varma Over Timing of Challenge to In-House Inquiry
