It is quite interesting to note that the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Abbas Ansari vs State of UP and Another in Criminal Revision No.- 3698 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:143098 that was reserved on 30.7.2025 and then finally pronounced on 20.8.2025 has suspended the conviction of politician Abbas Ansari who is the son of late political heavyweight Mukhtar Abbas Ansari in a three-year-old hate speech case saying that “refusal to stay his conviction amounts to injustice not only to him but also to the electorate which elected him”. We need to note that in a criminal revision petition that had been filed by politician Abbas Ansari who was a sitting MLA from Mau in Uttar Pradesh seeking quashing of order that had been passed by the Appellate Court whereby the Appellate Court had refused to stay/suspend the conviction passed against him by the Trial Court in a criminal case that had been filed under Sections 171F, 506, 186, 189, 153A, 120B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sameer Jain of Allahabad High Court who authored this notable judgment allowed the petition of Abbas Ansari and held that it was not a case where the prayer to suspend the conviction should be refused. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sameer Jain of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 5.7.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (MP/MLA)/Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I District Mau in Crl. Appeal No. 75 of 2025 (Abbas Ansari and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) to the extent it refuses the stay/suspension on the conviction passed against the revisionist by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge (MP/MLA), Mau in Crl. Case No. 9720 of 2023 (State Vs. Abbas Ansari and another) arising out of case crime No. 97 of 2022, under sections 171F, 506, 186, 189, 153A, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mau.”

As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 3 stating that, “At the very outset, counsel for both the parties submitted that only legal issue is involved in the instant revision and entire relevant materials of the case have already been filed alongwith the affidavit filed in support of the instant revision, therefore, without calling counter and rejoinder affidavit instant revision may be heard and disposed off. Accordingly, after hearing the parties instant revision is being finally disposed off.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 laying bare that, “Revisionist was sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Mau Constituency of Uttar Pradesh and he was facing trial for offences under sections 171F, 189, 153A, 506 and 120 B IPC and trial court on 31.5.2025 convicted him for offences under sections 171F, 189, 153A, 506 and 120 B IPC and awarded six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default one month additional imprisonment for offence under section 171F IPC; 2 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default additional imprisonment of two months for offences under sections 189 and 153A IPC; one year simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default additional imprisonment of one month for offence under section 506 IPC and six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default one month additional imprisonment for offence under section 120B IPC.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 mentioning that, “As revisionists was convicted by trial court for offences under Section 153A and 171F IPC and trial court while convicting him for offences under Section 153A and 189 IPC, awarded him sentence of two years imprisonment therefore, by virtue of Section 8, Representation of People Act 1951 (in short ‘R.P. Act’), he has been disqualified as MLA. Against the judgment and conviction order passed by the trial court, revisionist preferred criminal appeal before sessions court and during pendency of appeal he made a prayer to stay the sentence and conviction order dated 31.5.2025 passed by the trial court. Learned appellate court vide impugned order dated 5.7.2025 however, stayed the sentence awarded by trial court but refused his prayer to stay the conviction order passed by the trial court. Hence, the instant revision.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 44 that, “In case at hand, as per prosecution revisionist being public representative before huge public gathering, threatened the district administration in respect of an election and except this speech, there is no other evidence against him.”

It is worth paying attention that the Bench points out in para 45 that, “Considering the above speech, it appears, prima facie offence under section 153A IPC is not made out against the revisionist as on the basis of evidence produced by prosecution prima facie it could not be reflected that the act of the revisionist was either prejudicial to public harmony or could promote enmity between different groups which was necessary for offence under section 153 A IPC (See: Imran Pratapgarhi Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2025 SCC Online SC 678).”

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 46 that, “Further, as per Section 171 F IPC, whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished for offence under Section 171 F IPC but from the above speech delivered by revisionist, prima facie, it could not be reflected that he committed offence of either undue influence or personation at an election as only evidence against him is that he during his public speech threatened the district authorities though in respect of an election.”

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 47 that, “Further, as far as conviction of revisionist for offence under section 189 IPC is concerned, merely by threatening district administration in public speech though with regard to an election, prima facie, it cannot be said that he committed offence under section 189 IPC as from the evidence prima facie it could not be reflected that act of revisionist was to give threat of injury to public servant.”

Notably, the Bench points out in para 48 that, “Further, revisionist has been awarded maximum sentence of two years for offence under section 189 IPC and if he would have been awarded even a day less than two years then by virtue of his conviction under section 189 IPC he would not have been disqualified, therefore, it is necessary to analyse, while awarding maximum sentence of two years to revisionist for offence under section 189 IPC whether trial court assigned any reason or not. However, from para-59 of the conviction order it reflects, trial court after discussion observed that it is not appropriate to award lesser punishment to revisionist but it could not be reflected that why it was necessary to award maximum sentence of two years to the revisionist for offences punishable under sections 189 IPC which was necessary to mention considering the consequences of his two years maximum sentence.”

Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 49 that, “Further, revisionist was a sitting MLA and due to his conviction in the present matter, he has been disqualified, and therefore, at one hand, his conviction deprived his constituency from legitimate representation and on the other hand, it also restrained the revisionist to represent his constituency, therefore, it cannot be said that the conviction of the revisionist does not cause any irreversible consequence. The Apex Court in the case of Rahul Gandhi(supra) however, observed that a person in public place is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches but Apex Court further observed that by virtue of Section 8 R.P. Act disqualification of a person not only affect the right of public representative to continue in the public life but also affect the right of electorate who have elected him to represent their constituency.”

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 50 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Further, revisionist was a public representative and was a sitting MLA and at the time of election he was delivering the speech and although being MLA, he should restraint himself but merely on delivering such speech (details of which have already given in preceding paras) refusal to stay his conviction in view of this Court amounts to injustice not only to the revisionist but also to the electorate who elected him. It appears, while refusing the prayer to stay the conviction, appellate court did not consider this aspect.”

While continuing in the same vein, the Bench specifies in para 51 stating that, “Further, non-suspending the conviction order of the revisionist indicates far reaches consequences. Due to the conviction of the revisionist for offences under Sections 153A, 171F and 189 IPC, he not only remained disqualified but he also remained disqualified to contest the future election.”

It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench points out in para 52 that, “Further, however, from the record it reflects, apart from the case in hand, revisionist is also having criminal history of eleven other cases but from his criminal antecedents it reflects, all the cases were after the year 2019 and FIR of a case relates to U.P. Gangsters Act has been quashed by this Court and in one case relates to offence under section 171 H, 188 and 341 IPC this Court quashed the charge sheet and in one another case proceeding relates to offences under section 171H, 188 IPC has been quashed however, proceeding with regard to offence under section 133 R.P. Act is pending and none of the case relates to heinous offences like rape, murder etc.”

For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 53 stating that, “Further, however, the purpose of introduction of Section 8 R.P. Act is to resolve the issue of criminalization of politics and to depoliticizing criminality but while deciding the issue at hand, it is also necessary to consider the other facts and circumstances of the case like what are the actual allegations against the person who has been disqualified due to his conviction and whether his criminal antecedents of such nature which threatens the very idea of democracy.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 54 that, “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the political background of the revisionist and his family, facts of the present case and his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that it is not a case in which prayer to suspend the conviction of the revisionist should be refused.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 55 noting that, “Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in view of this Court, the impugned order dated 5.7.2025 passed by learned appellate court is illegal and is liable to be set aside to the extent the prayer of revisionist to suspend/stay the conviction order passed against him has been refused and to that extent is, accordingly, set aside. The conviction order passed by trial court against the revisionist shall remain suspended during pendency of his appeal before the appellate court.”

It is also worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 56 that, “The instant revision filed by revisionist stands allowed.”

Finally and for sake of clarity, the Bench then concludes by clarifying and holding aptly in para 57 that, “It is made clear, the observation made by this Court in the instant revision was only for the purpose whether conviction order passed against revisionist can be stayed or not during pendency of his appeal. The appellate court shall not be influenced from any observation made in this order and shall decide the appeal of the revisionist independently in accordance with law.”

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has very rightly stayed and so also commendably suspended the conviction of the gangster-turned-politician late Mukhtar Ansari’s son and disqualified MLA Abbas Ansari in connection with the ‘Hisab-Kitab’ hate speech case of 20222. It was also very rightly pointed out by the High Court that refusal to stay his conviction in view of this Court amounts to injustice not only to the revisionist but also to the electorate who elected him. It was also taken into account by the Allahabad High Court that none of the cases related to heinous offences like rape, murder etc. We see that the petition of the petitioner was thus allowed by the Allahabad High Court! Very rightly so!