Can authorities seize your property over acquaintance with a ‘gangster’? Uttarakhand High Court answers

Justice Ashish Naithani heard the matter on May 20.

Such proceedings cannot be sustained, particularly when no convincing material was placed on record to establish the connection between the attached properties and the gang’s alleged activities, the bench said.

‘Trial court proceeded in generalised manner’

• The Uttarakhand High Court, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the attachment orders, stated that a “generalized conclusion founded upon the overall allegations against the alleged gang, without examining the acquisition history” would not warrant confiscation of property of the accused.
• It was noted that the trial court had proceeded in a “generalized manner” and discarded the defence put forth by the accused without any detailed examination and had not looked past the general allegations against the gang.

‘Attachment on allegation’

• Proceedings under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, were initiated against the principal accused and his alleged associates, the Uttarakhand High Court noted.
• Apart from allegations of an organised gang engaged in unlawful activities, the case also dealt with the acquisition of movable and immovable properties through illegal means.
• Various properties were identified and subjected to attachment on the allegation that the same were acquired as a result of the gang’s activities.
• The attached properties included land parcels in Chithera village in Uttar Pradesh’s Gautam Buddh Nagar district as well as movable assets. including vehicles such as Toyota Fortuner and Innova Crysta.
• Aggrieved by such attachment, the accused moved separate applications before the Learned Special Judge under the Gangsters Act, seeking release of their respective properties.
• The applications preferred by the accused, however, came to be rejected owing to orders passed by the Special Judge, Gangsters Act/II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The present appeal before the Uttarakhand High Court was hence preferred.

No material on record

Senior Advocate D K Sharma, assisted by counsel Shubhang Dobhal and Bharat Chaudhary, contended before the Uttarakhand High Court that no cogent material had been brought on record to establish a connection between the attached properties and the alleged activities of the gang.

Further, it was submitted that the properties were in the names of the accused and had been acquired through lawful means, including registered sale deeds, bank transactions, mutation entries, and, in certain cases, inheritance.

The counsel urged that no specific material had been brought on record to show that the properties were acquired through force or unlawful means, nor was any individual victim or complaint identified in relation to the alleged transactions.

Lastly, it was argued that the case against the accused rested primarily on their alleged association with the principal accused, which by itself cannot justify attachment of property in the absence of independent evidence.

‘Absence of complaints does not weaken case’

Additional advocate general Dinesh Chauhan and advocate Vipul Painluy, appearing on behalf of the state, argued before the Uttarakhand High Court that the accused are closely associated with the organised gang led by the principal accused, which was engaged in unlawful acquisition of properties through illegal means and hence are beneficiaries of its activities, and the properties in question have been acquired as a result thereof.

It was also stated that documents relied upon by the defence do not establish lawful acquisition and hence are insufficient to discharge the burden cast upon them.

It was submitted that the absence of formal complaints does not weaken the prosecution’s case in cases involving organised crime, and that the material on record establishes a sufficient relation between the properties and the gang activities.