Uttarakhand High Court
Arun Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 May, 2026
2026:UHC:3935
Judgment Reserved on: 08.04.2026
Judgment Pronounced on:20.05.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2024
Arun Kumar ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024
Omvir ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024
Naresh Kumar ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024
Smt. Anjana ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024
Smt. Anjana ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shubhang
Dobhal, Mr Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Appellants.
1
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA,
for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. These connected Criminal Appeals, being CRLA Nos. 380 of 2024, 381
of 2024, 382 of 2024, 383 of 2024 and 532 of 2024, have been
preferred by the respective Appellants under Section 18 of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, read with
Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the respective
orders passed by the Learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act/II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, whereby the release
applications preferred by the Appellants came to be rejected.
2. Since all the aforesaid appeals arise out of connected proceedings under
the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
and involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard
together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake
of convenience, Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024, Arun Kumar vs.
State of Uttarakhand, is treated as the leading case.
3. The record reveals that proceedings under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 were initiated against one
Yashpal Tomar and his alleged associates, alleging the existence of an
organised gang engaged in unlawful activities, including acquisition of
movable and immovable properties through illegal means.
4. In pursuance thereof, various properties, both movable and immovable,
were identified by the authorities and subjected to attachment on the
allegation that the same constituted properties acquired as a result of
the activities of the said gang.
2
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
5. It is not in dispute that the properties so attached include assets
standing in the names of the present Appellants, comprising, inter alia,
parcels of land and certain movable properties such as motor vehicles.
6. The properties under attachment, as reflected from the record of the
respective appeals, include immovable properties in the nature of land
parcels situated, inter alia, in Village Chithera, District Gautam Buddh
Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), as well as certain movable properties including
motor vehicles. The movable assets include vehicles such as Toyota
Fortuner and Innova Crysta, standing in the names of the respective
Appellants. The said properties are alleged by the State to have been
acquired as a result of the activities of the gang, whereas the Appellants
claim independent ownership thereof.
7. Aggrieved by such attachment, the Appellants moved separate
applications before the Learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act, seeking
release of their respective properties.
8. In the said applications, the Appellants asserted independent ownership
over the properties and contended that the same were not liable to be
treated as properties acquired from the alleged activities of the gang.
9. Aggrieved by the respective impugned orders, the present appeals have
been preferred before this Court.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submits that the
impugned order is unsustainable, as no cogent material has been
brought on record to establish any nexus between the attached
properties and the alleged activities of the gang.
3
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
12. It is contended that the properties stand in the names of the
Appellants and have been acquired through lawful means, including
registered sale deeds, bank transactions, mutation entries, and, in
certain cases, inheritance. It is submitted that both immovable
properties and movable assets, such as vehicles, are supported by
documentary material placed before the Learned Trial Court.
13. Learned Counsel submits that the Learned Trial Court has failed
to properly appreciate the material placed on record and has erred in
proceeding without the State first establishing a foundational nexus
between the properties and any alleged criminal activity.
14. It is further contended that no specific material has been placed to
show that the properties were acquired through coercion or unlawful
means, nor has any individual victim or complaint been identified in
relation to the alleged transactions.
15. Learned Counsel submits that the case against the Appellants
rests primarily on their alleged association with the principal accused,
which by itself cannot justify attachment of property in the absence of
independent evidence.
16. On these submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order be set
aside.
17. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State supports the
impugned order and submits that the same has been passed after due
consideration of the material on record.
18. It is contended that the proceedings arise out of action taken
against an organised gang led by Yashpal Tomar, which was engaged in
unlawful acquisition of properties through illegal means.
4
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
19. Learned Counsel submits that the Appellants are closely
associated with the said gang and are beneficiaries of its activities, and
the properties standing in their names have been acquired as a result
thereof.
20. It is further submitted that the documents relied upon by the
Appellants do not establish lawful acquisition and are insufficient to
discharge the burden cast upon them, particularly in light of the
surrounding circumstances indicating non-genuine transactions.
21. Learned State Counsel contends that absence of formal
complaints does not weaken the prosecution case in matters involving
organised crime, and that the material on record establishes a sufficient
nexus between the properties and the gang activities.
22. On these submissions, it is prayed that the appeals be dismissed.
23. This court observes that the present appeals arise out of
proceedings under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, wherein properties standing in the names of the
Appellants have been attached on the allegation that the same constitute
properties acquired as a result of the activities of an organised gang
allegedly led by Yashpal Tomar. The limited question that arises for
consideration is whether the material on record establishes a legally
sustainable nexus between the properties in question and the alleged
activities of the gang.
24. While exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 18 of the
Act, this Court is required to examine whether the statutory
requirements necessary for sustaining attachment stand satisfied on the
basis of material available on record. Since attachment of property
5
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
directly affects proprietary rights protected under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, the findings recorded by the competent authority
and affirmed by the Learned Special Judge must disclose a rational
nexus between the property sought to be attached and the alleged
criminal activities.
25. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that attachment of
property under the Gangsters Act, though preventive in nature, has
serious civil consequences, inasmuch as it results in deprivation of
property. Such deprivation, being subject to constitutional protection
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be founded on
cogent material demonstrating that the property sought to be attached
is, in fact, the product of criminal activity attributable to the gang.
26. It is well settled that 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.
27. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the case of the
State, insofar as the present Appellants are concerned, rests primarily
on a general allegation that the gang was engaged in unlawful
acquisition of properties through coercive means. However, no specific
material has been placed on record to demonstrate, qua the individual
properties under attachment, that the same were acquired through
coercion, threat, or any other unlawful activity.
6
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
28. The mere fact that a person may be related to, associated with, or
acquainted with an alleged gang member cannot, by itself, justify
attachment of property standing in such person's name. The statute
contemplates attachment of properties acquired as a result of criminal
activities, and therefore the focus of judicial scrutiny must remain upon
the source, acquisition, and nexus of the property itself, and not merely
upon the alleged relationship between the parties.
29. Significantly, the State has not been able to identify any specific
victim in respect of the properties in question, nor has any complaint
been brought on record from any person alleging that such property
was transferred under coercion or undue influence. The absence of such
foundational material assumes importance, particularly when the
attachment is sought to be sustained on the premise of illegal
acquisition.
30. On the other hand, the Appellants have placed on record
documentary material indicating that the properties stand in their names
and have been acquired through transactions evidenced by registered
instruments, banking channels, or entries in official records. While the
evidentiary value of such documents may ultimately be subject to proof
in appropriate proceedings, they nevertheless constitute prima facie
material indicating lawful acquisition.
31. Attachment proceedings involving multiple properties and
multiple claimants necessarily require an individualized examination
qua each property and each claimant. A generalized conclusion founded
upon the overall allegations against the alleged gang, without
examining the acquisition history and supporting material relating to
7
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
each specific property, would not satisfy the requirement of fairness
inherent in proceedings having serious civil consequences
32. The Learned Trial Court, however, has proceeded to discard the
defence material without a detailed examination, and has primarily
relied upon the general allegations against the gang. Such an approach,
in the considered view of this Court, does not satisfy the requirement of
establishing a property-specific nexus, which is essential for sustaining
an order of attachment under the Act.
33. It is also noteworthy that the findings recorded by the Learned
Trial Court do not advert to the individual nature of each property or
the specific circumstances under which the same came to be acquired
by the respective Appellants. The impugned order, thus, proceeds in a
generalized manner, without undertaking a property-wise analysis.
34. This Court is conscious of the fact that proceedings under the
Gangsters Act are intended to curb organised crime; however, the same
cannot be permitted to operate in a manner so as to justify attachment
of property in the absence of specific and cogent material. Suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of proof, particularly when the
consequence is deprivation of property.
35. In the absence of material establishing that the properties in
question are the proceeds of criminal activity, and in view of the prima
facie documentary evidence indicating lawful acquisition, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the Appellants have made out a case for
release of the attached properties.
36. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Learned Trial Court to
the contrary cannot be sustained, as they suffer from lack of proper
8
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024--------Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024--------Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024--------Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024--------Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
appreciation of material and failure to apply the correct legal standard
with respect to nexus between the property and the alleged criminal
activity.
ORDER
This Court is presently concerned only with the legality of attachment
insofar as it relates to the properties claimed by the present Appellants.
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024 is allowed. The order dated
26.04.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 07 of 2023 by the
Learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act/IInd Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Haridwar, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the
attachment order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the District Magistrate,
Haridwar in Case No. 01 of 2022 shall stand set aside only qua Toyota
Fortuner bearing Registration No. DL 14CE 0199.
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024 is allowed. The order dated
09.01.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2023 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the attachment order dated 13.04.2022
shall stand set aside only qua Innova Crysta 2.8Z bearing Registration
No. DL 14CD 7745.
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024 is allowed. The order dated
26.04.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 06 of 2024 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the attachment order dated 13.04.2022
shall stand set aside only qua properties described at Serial Nos. 15 and
16 of the attachment order.
9
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024——–Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024——–Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024——–Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024——–Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024——–Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:3935
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024 is allowed. The order dated
07.05.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 09 of 2024 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the attachment order dated 13.04.2022
shall stand set aside only qua property described at Serial Nos. 17 of
the attachment order.
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024 is allowed. The order dated
23.07.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2024 is
hereby set aside. Consequently, the attachment order dated 13.04.2022
shall stand set aside only qua properties described at Serial Nos. 1 to 10
of the attachment order.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined
solely to the legality of the attachment orders impugned in the present
appeals. Nothing contained in this judgment shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of any pending criminal proceedings or
investigation against any accused person, nor shall this judgment
preclude the competent authority from proceeding in accordance with
law upon emergence of fresh and legally admissible material.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated:20.05.2026
NR/
10
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2024——–Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 380 of 2024——–Omvir v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2024——–Naresh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2024——–Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another with
Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2024——–Smt. Anjana v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
