Ghaus Mohiuddin Ansari (Wrongly Mentioned in the Fir as Gaus Moinuddin) vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2695 of 2026

Ghaus Mohiuddin Ansari (Wrongly Mentioned In The Fir As Gaus Moinuddin)

e r s aus onun	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Siddhartha Sinha, Chishti	Mohammad Taha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 14

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶7

Heard Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. V.K. Singh, the learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri Mayank Sinha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the informant and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. The counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in court is also taken on record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 23 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 20.01.2023 against five persons, not including the applicant, stating that the informant's son Manoj Kumar Rai had told that he was working with named accused Mukhtar Ansari. For some reasons, Mukhtar Ansari had got angry and had threatened him, and thereafter, Manoj Kumar Rai had apologized and he again started working for him. On 14.07.2001, some accomplices of Mukhtar Ansari had taken away the informant's son, Manoj Kumar Rai and on the next date, the informant got information about the murder of his son. At that time, there was terror of Mukhtar Ansari in the society and, therefore, the informant kept quiet for so many years.

¶10

In the meanwhile, persons from the side of Mukhtar Ansari had threatened him repetitively and the complainant came to know that a story was cooked

¶11

BAIL No. 2695 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

up regarding murder of his son. Now, that Muktar Ansari is no more a Member of Legislative Assembly since the year 2022, and his son has also been declared as absconder, the complainant has disclosed to the police that his son had been killed by Mukhtar Ansari and his companions.

¶14

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. The applicant was assigned the role of taking the deceased from his residence and suggesting him to obey the dictates of co-accused Mukhtar Ansari. The named co-accused persons Mohd. Shahid and Surendra Sharma Driver have already been granted bail by this court by means of orders dated 31.10.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.9399 of 2025 and 9409 of 2025. The other named coaccused persons Mukhtar Ansari and Kamal have died. Yet another coaccused person Sarfaraz Ansari @ Munni has also been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 04.09.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2827 of 2025. Yet another co-accused person Zafar @ Chanda has also been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 24.11.2024, passed by this court by this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11097 of 2025.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the first information report of the incident was already registered with the police in the year 2001 itself; it does not appear proper that a second first information report of the same incident was registered after 22 years; more particularly that the investigation on the first information report already stands concluded and the prosecution has already submitted a charge-sheet on the basis whereof an investigation is going on; the informant is an injured prosecution witness in the first information report from which trial is continuing after the charge-sheet submitted by the informant and that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 30.01.2026 whereas all other accused persons have been enlarged on bail, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶17

BAIL No. 2695 of 2026

¶18

3

¶19

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Ghaus Mohiuddin Ansari (wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Gaus Moinuddin) be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶23

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶24

April 29, 2026 Ram.

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghaus Mohiuddin Ansari (Wrongly Mentioned in the Fir as Gaus Moinuddin) v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghaus Mohiuddin Ansari (Wrongly Mentioned in the Fir as Gaus Moinuddin) v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Singar Prajapati Alias R.S. Prajapati vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home, New Dlehi and Another

Kamlesh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and Another

Anthony vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Master Suryabhan Singh Thru. His Grand Father Virendra Nath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Ritu Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others