Umar Ansari is dealing with legal prosecution within the hate speech case alongside along with his MLA brother Abbas Ansari.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash an FIR lodged in Uttar Pradesh against gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari’s son Umar Ansari in a hate speech case associated to the 2022 state meeting ballot marketing campaign.
Umar Ansari is dealing with legal prosecution within the hate speech case alongside along with his MLA brother Abbas Ansari. He is charged with sharing the dais in a rally in Mau district the place his brother allegedly threatened authorities officers with payback.
“We will not be quashing the FIR in a case where the high court has declined the relief. You will have to face the trial,” a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal stated.
Abbas Ansari contested and received the 2022 Uttar Pradesh meeting polls as a candidate of the Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party (SBSP)-Samajwadi Party alliance from the Mau Sadar seat.
He is alleged to have stated in a public rally that after forming the federal government within the state, no state officers could be transferred for the primary six months as he had a rating to settle with them (‘pahle hisab kitab hoga’).
Umar Ansari’s lawyer stated, “A young boy will have to face the trial just because he took birth in that family. Moreover, the alleged remark was not made by him.”
While refusing to entertain the plea, the bench stated its order won’t are available the best way when courts take into account the plea through the subsequent trial and different proceedings.
Umar Ansari has appealed against the excessive court docket order refusing to quash the case against him.
In January, the excessive court docket had additionally dismissed the plea of Abbas Ansari, in search of quashing of the legal proceedings within the case.
An FIR was lodged against the MLA, his brother Umar and others underneath Sections 171F (Punishment for undue affect or impersonation at an election rally and 506 (punishment for legal intimidation) of the IPC. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against the accused after the conclusion of the probe.
