Mere Association With Gang Leader Cannot Justify Property Attachment Under UP Gangster Act Without Nexus To Crime: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that mere association or acquaintance with an alleged gang leader cannot by itself justify attachment of property under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court observed that attachment of property affecting rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution must be founded on specific and cogent material establishing a clear nexus between the property and the alleged criminal activity.Justice Ashish Naithani was hearing a batch of criminal appeals filed under Section 18 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, challenging orders rejecting applications for release of attached properties. Proceedings under the Gangsters Act had been initiated against the accused on allegations of organised unlawful acquisition of properties through illegal means. Pursuant thereto, several movable and immovable properties standing in the names of the appellants were attached by the authorities. The appellants contended that the State had failed to establish any foundational nexus between the properties and the alleged criminal activities of the gang. The State opposed the appeals, contending that the appellants were closely associated with the gang and were beneficiaries of its unlawful activities. The Court observed that attachment proceedings under the Gangsters Act, though preventive in nature, have serious civil consequences as they result in deprivation of property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. It held that the competent authority and the Special Judge were therefore required to establish a rational nexus between the property sought to be attached and the alleged criminal activities.The Court further observed that mere allegation of involvement in organised crime or association with a gang leader cannot by itself justify attachment of property. It held that the statute specifically requires that the property must be shown to have been acquired as a result of criminal activity and therefore a clear and discernible nexus between the property and the alleged offence is a sine qua non.“… mere allegation of involvement in organised crime, or association with a person alleged to be a gang leader, cannot by itself justify attachment of property. The statute requires that the property must be shown to have been acquired as a result of criminal activity, and therefore, a clear and discernible nexus between the property and the alleged offence is a sine qua non,” the Court observed. Upon examining the record, the Court found that the State had failed to place any specific material showing that the properties under attachment were acquired through coercion, threat or other unlawful activity. It also noted the absence of any complaint or identified victim alleging that the properties were transferred under coercion or undue influence. The Court observed that attachment proceedings involving multiple properties and claimants necessarily require a property-specific and claimant-specific examination and cannot be sustained on generalized allegations against the gang.The Court further observed that the appellants had placed prima facie documentary material showing lawful acquisition of the properties through registered instruments, banking channels and official records. It held that the Trial Court had failed to undertake an individualised examination of each property and had instead proceeded on broad allegations against the alleged gang. The Court observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof when the consequence is deprivation of property.Holding that the attachment orders suffered from a lack of proper appreciation of material and failure to apply the correct legal standard regarding the nexus between the property and alleged criminal activity, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the attachment orders insofar as they related to the properties claimed by the appellants. Case Title: Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand with connected appeals [Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024 and connected matters]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Association With Gang Leader Cannot Justify Property Attachment Under UP Gangster Act Without Nexus To Crime: Uttarakhand HC

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

Mere Association With Gang Leader Cannot Justify Property Attachment Under UP Gangster Act Without Nexus To Crime: Uttarakhand HC

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers