Mere Relationship With Accused Can't Justify Attachment Of Third Party's Property In DA Case Without 'Clear Money Trail': Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that attachment of properties standing in the name of a third party cannot continue merely because the person is related to an accused in a disproportionate assets case. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91]

The Court further observed that where the sole accused dies before commencement of trial and the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie nexus between the attached properties and the alleged ill-gotten wealth, continuation of attachment would be legally unsustainable.

Allowing an appeal filed by the sister-in-law of a deceased government officer, Justice K. Sujana observed:

"The initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish that Accused No.1 had, in fact, purchased the properties in the name of the appellant as benami transactions. Mere filing of a charge sheet does not amount to proof unless cogent and convincing evidence is placed before the Court. Admittedly, the accused died prior to the commencement of trial and remained only an accused and not a convicted person. In such circumstances, the burden cannot be shifted onto the appellant to disprove the allegations in the absence of prima facie proof by the prosecution."

The Court consequently lifted the interim attachment over the appellant's properties, observing that "the continuation of attachment cannot be sustained."

The appeal arose from an order refusing to release properties attached by the Anti-Corruption Bureau during investigation into a disproportionate assets case against a public servant. The appellant, who was the sister-in-law of the accused officer, claimed that the attached residential flat, agricultural lands, bank balances and other properties had been purchased from her independent income, agricultural earnings, family support and divorce settlement, and had no connection with the accused.

The prosecution, on the other hand, alleged that the appellant was merely a benamidar and that the properties had been acquired by the accused officer in her name to conceal his disproportionate assets. It further contended that the appellant lacked sufficient independent income to acquire the properties and that financial records reflected transfers from the accused.

The trial court accepted the prosecution's case, holding that the appellant had failed to satisfactorily establish the source of funds and dismissed her application seeking release of the attached properties.

Reversing the decision, the High Court observed that although the appellant had consistently asserted lawful acquisition of the properties and produced documentary evidence in support, "no direct or cogent material" had been produced by the prosecution to conclusively establish that the properties had in fact been acquired from the deceased officer's ill-gotten wealth.

The Court held that the trial court's conclusion "appears to be based more on suspicion rather than on legally admissible evidence establishing a clear nexus between the accused and the subject properties."

The Court further observed that while a third party is required to explain the source of acquisition, once a plausible explanation supported by documents is furnished, "the onus shifts on the prosecution" to establish that the properties are benami and traceable to the accused's disproportionate assets.

Rejecting the prosecution's reliance on the appellant's relationship with the accused, the Court observed that "mere relationship with the accused cannot be a ground to draw an adverse inference in the absence of a clear money trail."

The Bench also attached significance to the fact that the sole accused officer had died during the pendency of the proceedings, resulting in abatement of the criminal case.

While clarifying that abatement does not automatically result in release of attached properties, the Court held that where there has been no adjudication of guilt and no independent proceedings establishing that the properties are tainted, continuation of attachment over a third party's properties "cannot be sustained" and would amount to "deprivation of property without sufficient legal basis."

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in U. Subhadramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was held that if attachment must be withdrawn upon acquittal, "it stands to reason that such orders must be withdrawn when the prosecution abates or cannot result in a conviction due to the death of the accused," keeping in mind the presumption of innocence until conviction.

Applying the said principle, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish any direct nexus between the attached properties and the alleged disproportionate assets, whereas the appellant had furnished a plausible explanation supported by documentary evidence regarding the source of acquisition.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order and directed that the interim attachment over the properties listed in Annexure VI of the seizure report be lifted and the properties released in favour of the appellant, subject to any other proceedings pending in accordance with law.

Case Title: J. Nagakumari v. State of Telangana

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2026

Appearance: Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy for the appellant; Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, Standing Counsel for ACB, for the respondent-State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 91