Mere Relationship With A 'Gangster' No Ground To Attach Property; Crime-Acquisition Nexus Essential: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh clarified that the State cannot seize property under the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on "mere bald allegations" or simply because an individual is related to a known gangster.

The bench thus allowed a criminal appeal filed by Mansoor Ansari against an order passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Ghazipur, upholding the District Magistrate's order attaching his properties.

For context, the Special Judge had previously upheld the DM's decision to attach Ansari's shops and building, valued at Rs. 26,18,025/-, on the allegation in a police report that the same were 'benami' assets of late-Mukhtar Ansari.

Dealing with his appeal, the Single Judge examined Section 14 of the Gangster Act (Attachment of property), to note that the DM's power to attach property is not absolute and there must be material for objective determination by him that a person either, as a member, leader or organiser of a gang, acquired any property as a result of the commission of any offence mentioned under the Gangster Act.

“There must be a nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his property, as it is necessary to find out whether his acquisition of property was a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Gangster Act being a gangster,” the bench observed.

The Court further clarified that the expression “reason to believe” appearing under Section 14 is a higher level of state of mind and cannot be equated to mere suspicion or doubt and that it but contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation.

In this case, the Court found that the DM had failed to record a satisfaction that was legally sound, which made the attachment “wholly arbitrary”.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the initial burden is always upon the State to satisfy that the property which is sought to be seized was acquired as a result of the commission of an offence mentioned in the Act.

The Court categorically stated that it is not a requirement of law that an aggrieved person seeking release of properties from attachment must prove the source of income to acquire the properties in question.

In essence, the Court held that there must be a nexus between the commission of any offence and the acquisition of the property and this nexus has to be proven by the State at the first instance.

The High Court also took note of the fact that in this case, the applicant, Mansoor Ansari, himself had no criminal history under the Gangster Act. While a case was registered against Mukhtar Ansari in 2007, the appellant was not an accused in that matter.

In view of this, the bench categorically remarked that “merely because appellant is cousin of said Mukhtar Ansari, it cannot be a ground to attach his property”.

It further noted that there was “absolutely no material” to show that the appellant was associated with any gang or that there was any 'nexus' between a criminal act and the property acquired.

"Except mere bald allegation made by the police in its report, there was no material to show that disputed property was constructed or acquired by the appellant from the financial resources acquired by commission of offences. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. The impugned order of attachment passed by the learned District Magistrate is not based on proper satisfaction and the same is wholly arbitrary", the Court ruled.

Similarly, the High Court also pulled up the Special Judge (Gangster Act) for 'miserably' failing to consider the evidence produced by the appellant and for rejecting his version without assigning any proper reasoning.

Considering the entire facts, the Court found that the impugned order was against facts and law and thus, was liable to be set aside.

Relying on Babu Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench reminded that the Court dealing with a reference under Section 16 of the Act is not empowered to act as a “post office or mouthpiece” of the State or the District Magistrate.

Thus, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Ghazipur Special Judge and the attachment orders of the District Magistrate. The Court directed the respondent State to release the disputed property forthwith.

Case title - Mansoor Ansari vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 108