Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Zeeshan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. … on 5 August, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:53776
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1038 of 2026
Mohammad Zeeshan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Lalit Kishore Tiwari, Himanshu Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Reserved on 21.05.2026 Pronounced on 05.08.2026
Court No. - 31
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard submission of learned court for the applicant, learned AGA for the Stae respondents and perused the record.
2. By means of instant criminal appeal under Section 18 of UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge Gangster Act, Court No. 9, Sitapur in Case No. 118 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.3 of 2021 under Section 2/3 UP Gangster Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur and order dated 20.09.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Sitapur and allow the appeal and the above said property (Motor car, Creta No. UP 32 J H 0555) be released in favour of appellant.
3. In short, the facts of the case relevant to the present appeal are that acting on the report of SHO Kotwali Nagar, Sitapur, on which recommendation was made by S.P., Sitapur, dated 06/01/2021, a Case Crime No. 03 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as “the Act,” was registered against Mujeeb Ahmad, Haseen Ahmad alias Eklakha Ahmad, and Ahmed Hussain, son of Saifu alias Iqbal, resident of Mohalla Butsganj, Kotwali, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh. These persons are notoriously termed as “Gaddi Brothers.” They have organized a gang which is engaged in extortion, illegal operation of vehicles stands dealing in intoxicating substances, land grabbing and deriving temporal, physical, economic and other advantages by anti-social activity. The gang is still active. People of the locality are afraid of this gang. They have purchased a number of tractors and goods carriers in the name of their relatives and associates to avoid police action, but in fact, these vehicles are being used by the Gaddi brothers and their family members. These purchases of vehicles are carried out at the instance of Gaddi brothers, the gangsters, in the name of several persons which is, in fact, Benami transaction. Gangster Mujeeb Ahmad is operating a brickkiln by his ill-gotten money from where a number of tractors and other vehicles are being used for loading and transportation of goods and bricks, were seized by police in December, 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 31.12.2020, appellant had gone to attend burial of a relative and had parked his Creta car bearing Registration No. UP 32 JH0555 in front of the house of Mujeeb Ahmed, who is his relative. When he came back to the place of Mujeeb Ahmed to take back his car, he came to know that his vehicle was lifted by Kotwali police and had been seized. On the said date, the appellant was present at Sitaput and on said date a raid was conducted and police team took away his vehicle as a raid was also conducted at brick klin of Mujeeb Ahmed from where a number of tractors and other vehicles were seized, whereas present vehicle was parked in front of the house of Mujeeb Ahmad. Learned District Magistrate, Sitapur passed an order dated 20.09.2021 under Section 14 (1) of UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and thereby attached his motor car in illegal manner. The appellant moved an application before learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act under Section 16(2) for release of the said property which belongs to appellant and accused Mujeeb Ahmed had nothing to do with the said vehicle. Nevertheless, learned Special Judge rejected the application for release of the vehicle and confirmed the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the District Magistrate. The applicant is neither accused nor has any criminal history as per report of police station concerned, filed with the District Magistrate. He has neither named in the FIR lodged against Mujeeb Ahmed and others, nor his name finds place in the gang chart. Thus, learned District Magistrate committed grave error while attaching the property of the the appellant and the learned Sessions Judge also erred while confirming the order of the District Magistrate.
5. He further submitted that the accused persons, namely Mujeeb Ahmad, Haseen Ahmad, and Ahmad Hussain @ Chhanu, are also named in F.I.R. No. 3 of 2021. Their properties were likewise attached under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The said accused persons filed an application before the learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Sitapur, seeking release of their attached properties, and the learned court allowed the application and ordered the release of the properties in their favour.
6. He next submitted that the main accused, namely Mujeeb Ahmad, filed an application before the learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Sitapur, seeking release of his attached properties. The learned court below, by its order dated 27.08.2021, allowed the application and directed the release of the properties, namely land bearing Gata Nos. 477, 509, 524, 196K, 217, 196G, 218, 136, 2019, and 222, as well as House Nos. 447A and 484, in favour of the accused.
7. He next submitted that Nazimi Begum, wife of Mujeeb Ahmad, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2070 of 2021 before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court, by judgment and order dated 14.02.2023, allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur, in Case Crime No. 3 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur, and directed the release of the attached property in her favour.
8. He next submitted that the accused, namely Ahmad Hussain @ Chhanu, also filed an application before the learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Sitapur, seeking release of his attached properties. The learned court below, by its order dated 01.06.2022, allowed the application and directed the release of the properties, namely Plot Nos. 350 and 351, Gata No. 508, and a Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No. UP34E7900, in favour of the accused.
9. He next submitted that the relatives of the accused persons, namely Rizwana, Aslam, Shabnam, and Afsari Fatima, wife of Ahmad Hussain @ Chhanu, also filed applications before the learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Sitapur, seeking release of their attached properties. The learned court below, by orders dated 05.04.2022, 01.06.2022, and 16.10.2025, allowed the said applications and directed the release of the attached properties in their favour.
10. He next submitted that the relatives of the accused persons, namely Rizwana, Aslam, Shabnam, and Afsari Fatima, wife of Ahmad Hussain @ Chhanu, also filed applications before the learned Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Sitapur, seeking release of their attached properties. The learned court below, by orders dated 05.04.2022, 01.06.2022 and 16.10.2025 allowed the said applications and directed the release of the attached properties in their favour.
11. He further submitted that the appellant is residing at Lucknow and had sufficient land and business. He generated his resources to purchase the car from his savings and bank loan. The appellant is suffering much difficulties and hardships due to attachment of his car in illegal manner. Accused Mujeeb Ahmad or his brothers are not paymaster of said vehicle which is owned by the appellant.
12. He also submitted that the appellant had filed registration certificate of said car, which reveals that it was registered on 21.11.2017 in the name of appellant. This is registered and private vehicle. He purchased this car by taking loan of a sum of Rs.8,04,598/- from the HDFC Bank. The loan amount was to be repaid since 05/11/2017 along with interest. The appellant had filed finance certificate for interest and principal repayable for the period 01/04/2020 to 31/03/2021, which shows that the principal outstanding amount as on end of the period 01/04/2020 to 31/03/2021, covered under the certificate is nil. He has also filed bank statement through Annexure-2 from the period 22/09/2017 to 21/10/2018, which shows that the EMI was regularly paid to the tune of Rs.25,401/-. He had also filed bank statement of his loan account of HDFC Bank for a period of 16/04/2020 to 15/01/2021. He has also filed a tenancy agreement with DSR India Infra Com Pvt. Ltd. dated 12/06/2018, wherein the appellant has rented his house to the said company for Rs.35,000/- per month. The appellant has been paying EMI of vehicle loan from his valid sources of income and accused Muzeeb Ahmed is his brother, is nowhere involved either in purchase or payment of EMI of bank loan. He has filed a copy of FIR and gang chart of Case Crime No.3 of 2021 in support of his version that the appellant is nothing to do with the accused persons in Case Crime No.3 of 2021, under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.
13. The Creta car of the appellant was not seized by the appellant police from the brick klin of the Muzeeib Ahmed as in chart of vehicle seized from the brickl klin of the Muzeeb Ahmed has been shown in the impugned order dated 20/09/2021, passed by the learned District Magistrate, which shows that three tractors of Shankar Lal, one tractor and trailer of Niraj Shukla, one truck of Nazmi Begum wife of Muzeeb Ahmed, six tractors which belong to Muzeeb, Azad Ali, Nazmi Begum, Ganga Ram Yadav, Shaukat Ali, Idris Ali, one JCB of Aslam, one bullet and one passion motor cycle of Mohd. Nadeem, were seized from the said brick klin. In this chart, the vehicle of the appellant finds no mention. This fortifies appellant’s version that his Creta car was not recovered from said brick klin. His Creta car was lifted by the police in front of the house of Muzeeb Ahmed in absence of the appellant. The appellant is registered owner of the vehicle. Learned Special Judge has dismissed the released application of the appellant in cursory manner while observing that the appellant has filed his loan statement and statement of bank account to show that the said vehicle was purchased on loan taken from bank and he was paying Rs.25,401/- as EMI for disbursement of said loan. He has filed a rent agreement which shows that the tenant agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month as house rent to the appellant. But the said vehicle loan was taken on 05/11/2017. Thus, it is wrong to observe that the appellant failed to file any document in regard to his income on the date of obtaining loan for the purpose of purchase of said vehicle. He has successfully proved that the said vehicle was purchased by valid sources of income and loan taken from Bank. He next submitted that the aforesaid finding of learned trial court is perverse and illogical and devoid of cogent reason.
14. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle made on behalf of the appellant placing reliance on the grounds taken in the counter affidavit. He has stated that the presence of a large number of vehicles was found at one time at brickkiln of the main accused Mujib Ahmad. It shows that these vehicles were purchased by him in the name of his relatives, associates and family members by ill-gotten money, to conceal this fact. He is the real owner and a paymaster of the vehicles. In fact, Mujeeb Ahmad uses this car and he has paid its sale consideration. The appellant failed to produce any document in support of his version that he had purchased the vehicle by his known sources of income, and therefore, no interference is called for in the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the said vehicle was acquired by the appellant illegally and by the proceeds of crime committed by Mujib Ahmad and his brothers. He is not the real owner of the vehicle, but he is ostensible owner. The car was seized from the camput of Mujeeb Ahmad and appellant is his relative and resides at the place of Mujeeb Ahmad.
15. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of material available on record and give thankful consideration to submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and documents filed in support of the present appeal.
16. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangster Act, which read as under :-
“2(b). “Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, namely ……. …….
2(c). “gangster” means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities;”
17. On a conjoint reading of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangster Act, it appears that for taking action under Section 14 of the Gangster Act against a person, there must be material for objective determination of the District Magistrate that he either, as a member, leader or organiser of a gang acquired any property as a result of 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. Further, one might have committed several offences but if the property is acquired by him with the aid of his earning from legal source, no action under Section 14 of the Act can be taken against him.
18. Section – 14 of the Gangster Act reads as under :-
“14. Attachment of property.- (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether movable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court.
(2) The provisions of the Code shall mutatis mutandis apply to every such attachment.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code the District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any property attached under sub-section (1) and the Administrator shall have all the powers to administer such property in the best interest thereof.
(4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property.”
19. In case of Babu Khan vs. State of U.P. 2024 Supreme (All) 999, the Court has held as under :-
“20. It is now well settled that property being made subject matter of an attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act. The District Magistrate has to record its satisfaction on this point. The satisfaction of the District Magistrate is not open to challenge in any appeal. Only a representation is provided for before the District Magistrate himself under Section 15 of the Act and in case he refuses to release the property on such representation, in that case the person aggrieved has to make a reference to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. The Court, while dealing with the reference made under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act has to see whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act and has to enter into the question and record his own finding on the basis of the inquiry held by him under Section 16 of the Act. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the property was not acquired by the gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act, the Court shall order for release of the property in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached.
21. The object behind providing the power of judicial scrutiny under Section 16 of the Code is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the District Magistrate in depriving a person of his property and to restore the rule of law, therefore a heavy duty lies upon the Court to hold a formal enquiry to find out the truth with regard to the question, whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under the Act. The order to be passed under Section 17 of the Act must disclose reasons and the evidence in support of finding of the Court. The Court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate. If a person has no criminal history during the period the property was acquired by him, how the property can be held to be a property acquired by or as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act is a pivotal question which has to be answered by the Court. Besides, the aforesaid question, the other important question to be considered by the Court is whether the property which was acquired prior to the registration of the case against the accused under the Act or prior to the registration of the first case of the Gangster chart can be attached by District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.
22. The provisions of Section 14 of the Act, referred to above, empowers the District Magistrate to attach the property acquired by the Gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under this Act. The District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any property attached, to administer such property in the best interest thereof but there must be reason to believe that any property whether moveable or immovable in possession of any person, has been acquired by a Gangster as a result of commission of an offence, triable under this Act but the District Magistrate in its order has not recorded his satisfaction having reason to believe with regard to the property attached that it was acquired by appellant as a result of commission of an offence triable under Gangster Act, even though while deciding the reference under Section 16 of the Act, the trial court does not appreciate the evidence and in a mechanical manner passed the impugned order relying upon the observations made by the District Magistrate which is illegal and an unjustified approach.”
20. Similar law was laid down in case of Vaishali Kapoor and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2024 AHC 16118.
21. Section – 14 of the Gangster Act clearly provides that the order of the District Magistrate attaching one’s property, must be based on reason and not arbitrary. The expression “reason to believe” appearing therein has some intent and purpose. It puts fetter in the arbitrary exercise of power of attachment to deny a person of his right to any property. Law requires that there must be reason to believe that the property sought to be attached, has been acquired by a ”gangster’ as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. The expression “reason to believe” contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation involving judicial review, as distinguished from purely subjective consideration. There must be rational and intelligible nexus between ”reason’ and ”belief’. The word ”believe’ is a much stronger word than ”suspect’ and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a prudent man must have felt convinced in his mind that what has been alleged, is true. The expression “reason to believe” is also defined in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the said definition, a person is said to have ”reason to believe’ a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. “Reason to believe” is not the same thing as the ”suspicion’ or ”doubt’ and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. “Reason to believe” is a higher level of state of mind. The Court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons examined by the authority in coming to the believe, but the Court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing in the matter in regard to which it is required to entertain the belief. In this connection a reference may be made to case of Smt. Rashida Bano vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 6 ADJ 575, Badan Singh @ Baddo vs. State of U.P. and others, (2001)10 AHC CK 0033, Smt. Maina Devi vs. State of U.P., 2013 9 ADJ 542, Waseem Khan vs. State of U.P., 2023 LawSuit (All)751 and Criminal Appeal No. 2130 of 2021 (Abrar vs. State of U.P. and another), decided on 23.10.2021.
22. In Sarita Rai and another versus State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1933 of 2025, decided on 04.05.2026, this Court held that it may also be added here that initial burden is always upon the State to satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary materials that the appellant being a gangster acquired the properties as a result of commission of any offence mentioned in Section 2 of the Act. It is also to be kept in mind that the appellant / aggrieved is not liable to establish the source of income to acquire the properties in question. It is no requirement of law that the aggrieved person seeking release of properties from attachment must prove the source of income for acquisition thereof. There must be a nexus between the commission of any offence and the acquisition of the property.
23. As stated earlier, burden is on State to prove or establish that the disputed property was acquired as a result of commission of offences mentioned in Section – 2 of Gangster Act. Considering entire facts, it appears that there is absolutely nothing to show any nexus between commission of any offence and the acquisition of said vehicle by the appellant. It appears that the car in question was attached by the District Magistrate mainly because of the impression that the appellant is an associate of Gangsters Gaddi brothers. Except mere bald allegation made by the police in its report, there was no material to show that the said property was acquired by the appellant from the financial resources acquired by commission of any offences or sale consideration was paid by Mujeeb or his brother who are accused in said Gangsters Act case. 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. Similarly, learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act) has miserably failed to consider the evidence produced by the appellant. The version of appellant has been rejected without assigning any proper reasoning. Considering entire facts, it is clear that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.
24. In view of aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Court No.9 is set aside. Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant before learned court below stands allowed accordingly. The order of attachment passed by District Magistrate with regard to the Creta car in question is also hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to release the said vehicle in favour of the appellant.
25. The appeal is allowed.
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)
August 5, 2026
KR
