The Allahabad High Court, on Tuesday, denied the anticipatory bail plea related to forum hunting. Justice Samit Gopal presided over the case, which involved an application seeking anticipatory bail for offenses registered under Sections 506, 171-F, 186, 189, 153-A, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case revolves around Abbas Ansari, the candidate for the 356 Vidhan Sabha constituency Mau Sadar of the Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party, Umar Abbas Ansari (the applicant), and 150 unidentified individuals. Together, they allegedly pressured the District Mau Administration during a public gathering to settle their accounts post-election. This act was deemed a breach of the code of conduct and is punishable under Sections 171-F and 506 of the IPC. The anticipatory bail plea in this matter was rejected by the court.

A charge-sheet has been filed against Abbas Ansari and Umar Abbas Ansari, citing Sections 506, 171-F, 186, 189, 153-A, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both accused individuals challenged the charge-sheet, as well as the order of cognizance and summoning. However, their challenge was dismissed. Notably, co-accused Abbas Ansari and Mansoor Ahmad Ansari were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The High Court observed that after the initial anticipatory bail application was dismissed for not being pressed, the applicants later challenged the trial court proceedings in the High Court. Their specific challenge included contesting the charge-sheet, the order of cognizance, and the summoning. The High Court noted that the applicants were well-informed about the trial court proceedings against them. Despite the dismissal of their petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the subsequent dismissal of their Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court, these decisions did not impact the ongoing investigation. The High Court concluded that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial, as a prima facie offense is established in the case.

Furthermore, the bench noted that despite the proceedings, the applicant failed to appear before the trial court. Despite being summoned through orders, warrants, and the issuance process under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the applicant chose not to present himself before the trial court. Interestingly, two co-accused individuals had appeared before the court and were granted bail. Instead of complying, the applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application.

In the later stages, the applicant's challenge to the charge-sheet, cognizance, and summoning order before the High Court was dismissed. Subsequently, an appeal against this decision before the Apex Court was also dismissed. The High Court, referencing the case of Sayeed Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and another, deliberated on the concept of forum hunting. It cited a judgment of the Apex Court regarding the issue, emphasizing that the practice of forum shopping is condemned and considered an abuse of law. The Apex Court, in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B., had criticized forum shopping in the Indian legal system. Taking all these factors into consideration, the bench dismissed the bail application.

Case: Umar Ansari v. State of U.P.

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 9241 of 2023.