New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday (February 21) recalled its order passed earlier in the day to complete the investigation against MLA Abbas Ansari in a case registered against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act within 10 days and instead sought to know whether any investigation was pending against him.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was informed by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Ansari, that the investigation into the case was complete and a chargesheet was filed. He further told the bench that a wrong affidavit was filed in the matter and there was nothing pending against him.
What did Uttar Pradesh counsel say?
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government, said that he needed further clarification on the matter.
The bench posted the matter for March 6.
Apex court was hearing Ansari’s bail plea
The bench was hearing a plea filed by Ansari seeking bail in the case. He moved the top court against an order of the Allahabad High Court denying to grant him bail in the case, saying investigation in the case was underway. He is accused of running a gang for financial and other benefits in Chitrakoot district in Uttar Pradesh.
What did the bench order earlier in the day?
Earlier in the day, the bench directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to complete the investigation against Ansari in the case within 10 days. It also said that it would consider the his bail plea after investigation in the case was over.
What Ansari submitted before the apex court earlier?
Earlier on January 31, Ansari, fearing encounter, sought permission in the top court to appear virtually before trial court proceedings in a case registered under the Gangsters Act. Sibal, while urging the top court to allow him to appear through video-conferencing in the court proceedings before the trial court, had told the court that Ansari was virtually appearing before the court from the Kasganj jail, however, this facility was stopped. The apex court bench directed him to approach high court for this relief.
