SC dismisses bail plea of ex-MP's son, says police unable to catch privileged people

A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose dismissed the petition filed by Umar challenging the December 7, 2020 order of the Allahabad High Court.

Published: 23rd February 2021 08:39 PM  |   Last Updated: 23rd February 2021 08:39 PM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (File Photo| Shekhar Yadav, EPS)


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Tuesday refused anticipatory bail to Mohammad Umar, son of former MP Ateeq Ahmad, in a case of kidnapping and assault on a businessman in a UP prison, and said there are "certain privileged people" in the country whom "police are not able to catch despite non-bailable warrant".

A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose dismissed the petition filed by Umar challenging the December 7, 2020 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to grant him anticipatory bail.

The apex court said it seems the police (CBI) is not acting against the accused.

"In this country there are certain privileged people, whom police are not able to catch despite non-bailable warrants against them," the bench observed.

The police is not able to execute a non-bailable arrest warrant against Umar, it said.

The bench said, "We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the 2nd anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed".

During the hearing, senior advocate P S Patwalia, appearing for Umar, said he is a young student studying law from a private university and the allegation against him is that he had beaten up a businessman in the jail, where his father was lodged.

He submitted that it is not denied that Umar was in Deoria jail of Uttar Pradesh that day as he had gone to meet his father.

The bench however told Patwalia that police is not able to catch him, then how can it grant him anticipatory bail in the case.

Patwalia said that he is a young boy, who does not have any criminal history.

"There may be several cases against his father but the son does not have a single case against him, except this one," the senior counsel argued.

The bench, however, refused to accept his contention and dismissed Umar's appeal.

Businessman Mohit Jaiswal had filed an FIR on December 28, 2018, alleging that he was kidnapped from Lucknow and taken to the prison where he was assaulted by the jailed don, his son and aides and was forced to transfer his business to them.

Lucknow-based realtor Jaiswal had alleged that he was tortured and forced to transfer five of his firms in the name of the former lawmaker.

The combined assets of the firms were worth Rs 45 crore, the FIR said, adding that Ahmad also took away Jaiswal's car and other belongings before releasing him.

Following the assault case, on April 23, 2019, the top court had directed shifting Ahmad to a high security jail in Gujarat for kidnapping and assaulting Jaiswal.

Taking a strong note of the incident, the top court ordered a CBI probe into the case.

It has ordered suspension of five jail officials against whom the Uttar Pradesh government has initiated departmental proceedings for prima facie involvement in the case.

It had asked the state government to give the status report of 80 cases registered against Ahmad, besides the 26 pending in different courts.

The top court was told that there were 109 cases registered against Ahmad from 1979 to 2019 which include 17 murder cases, 12 cases under UP Gangster Act, eight under Arms Act and four under UP Goonda Act.

Ateeq Ahmad was a five-time MLA and one-time MP and has been in jail since Feb 11, 2017.

In the past he was associated with political parties such as Samajwadi Party and Apna Dal (Sonewal faction).


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp