upversusVinay Rai @ Raja Rai

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 200 of 2024

State of U.P.
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
Vinay Rai @ Raja Rai
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                     :   A. K. Sand
Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   Santosh Kumar Rai

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 18 of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986"), challenging the order dated
04.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mau
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Gangsters Court") in Miscellaneous
Case No. 177/2023, whereby the learned court below set aside the
attachment order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau
under Section 14(1) of the Act and directed release of vehicle No. UP 54
AL/4930, a Spendour Plus Motorcycle, in favour of the respondent/claimant
Vinay Rai @ Raja Rai, son of Kamlesh Kumar Rai, resident of Hathini,
Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau.

BRIEF FACTS

2. That the SHO, Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau filed a report in Case No.
540/22 stating that the respondent Vinay Rai, through illegally earned
money, purchased a motorcycle and forwarded the same for attachment
under Section 14(1) of the Act of 1986.

3. That against the respondent, multiple criminal cases were registered,
including Criminal Case No. 468/22 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 507,
302 IPC and Section 7 CLA; Criminal Case No. 475/22 under Section 3/25
Arms Act; Cr. Case No. 540/22 under Section 3(1) Gangster Act; Cr. Case
No. 1833/16 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC; and Criminal
Case No. 194/2021 under Section 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC.

4. That the District Magistrate, Mau passed the impugned attachment order
                                                           CRLA No. 200 of 2024
                                2


dated 03.12.2022, attaching the said vehicle under Section 14(1) of the Act.

5. That no representation under Section 15 of the Act was filed by the
respondent as he was in jail at the relevant time, and was released only in
August 2023.

6. That by order dated 03.04.2023, the District Magistrate referred the matter
to the learned Gangsters Court under Section 16(1) of the Act, which
thereafter exercised its powers under Section 17 of the Act.

7. That the learned Gangsters Court, vide its order dated 04.10.2023, allowed
the reference in favour of the respondent, set aside the attachment order and
directed release of the vehicle, holding the attachment order to be arbitrary,
mechanical and without proper application of judicial mind.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the present appeal.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that the
District Magistrate correctly appreciated the material on record and was fully
satisfied that the respondent had acquired the vehicle in question through
illegal means by involving himself in anti-social activities as defined under
the Gangster Act.

10. It was further urged that the competent authority passed the order after
duly considering the report of the Superintendent of Police as also the report
of the Station House Officer, and therefore the impugned order does not
suffer from any infirmity.

11. It was also submitted that the DM has pointed out that the respondent
was not able to demonstrate the lawful source of income from which the
attached vehicle was acquired, and therefore the attachment order deserved
to be sustained.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the vehicle in question
was legally acquired by the respondent through income earned from a Brick
Kiln and a shop dealing in building material ("Raju Building Material"), of
which the respondent's father is the proprietor, and that the respondent
resides in a joint household.

13. It was submitted that the respondent produced documentary evidence in
support of his claim, including the registration certificate of the
                                                           CRLA No. 200 of 2024
                                 3


proprietorship of Raju Building Material, GST receipts, and evidence of
regular tax filing.

14. It was further submitted that the District Magistrate passed the
attachment order without any application of mind, solely on the basis of the
police report, without conducting any independent inquiry into the source of
acquisition of the vehicle.

15. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Badan Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and Others, 2001 (43) ACC, Smt. Kahkashan Parveen and
Anr. v. State of UP, 2000(1) JIC 263 (All), the judgment in Rajbir Singh
Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 SCC Online All 5986, and the
Supreme Court judgment in Waseem Khan v. State of UP.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and having
carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Gangsters
Court, the record of the lower court, and the provisions of the Act of 1986
and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention
Rules, 2021, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal
deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:

A. The Statutory Scheme Governing Attachment and Release

17. Section 14(1) of the Act of 1986 empowers the District Magistrate to
attach movable or immovable property in possession of any person, where
he has reason to believe that such property has been acquired by a gangster
as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act. The phrase
"reason to believe" carries a threshold higher than mere suspicion or
conjecture. It must be founded on relevant and material grounds and not on
bald police assertions.

18. Section 16 provides for a judicial inquiry by the Gangsters Court, which
is entrusted with the powers of a Civil Court to determine factual and legal
issues, and Section 17 mandates that the order passed thereunder must
disclose reasons and evidence in support of the court's finding.

19. The statutory scheme has been elaborately considered by the Allahabad
High Court in the case of Badan Singh alias Baddo v. State of U.P., 2002
Cri LJ 1392, wherein it was held:

      "Section 14 of the Act is a harsh provision that affects one's right
                                                            CRLA No. 200 of 2024
                                 4


     to property, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
     The initial burden was upon the State to satisfy the District
     Magistrate with necessary materials that a gangster acquired the
     properties as a result of commission of any offence. The Act does
     not provide that the aggrieved person seeking release of the
     properties from attachment must prove the source of income for
     acquisition thereof."

20. Similarly, in Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018
SCC Online All 5986, paras 16 and 18, this Court held that for action under
Section 14, there must be materials for objective determination of the
District Magistrate that the person is either a member, leader or organiser of
a gang and has acquired property in commission of any offence under the
Act. There must be a nexus between his criminal act and the property
acquired by him. Mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach
his property.

B. Infirmities in the Attachment Order Dated 31.12.2022

21. From a perusal of the attachment order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the
District Magistrate, Mau, this Court finds the following critical infirmities,
which were rightly noted by the learned court below:

(i) The attachment order was passed solely on the basis of the police report
submitted by the officer-in-charge of P.S. Sarai Lakhansi. No material was
supplied to the District Magistrate to independently form a reason to believe
that the vehicle in question was acquired by the respondent as a result of the
commission of any offence triable under the Act.

(ii) The order does not record the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction
with reasons as required under Section 14(1). The language of Section 14(1)
is unambiguous — it requires "reason to believe", a standard stronger than
mere suspicion, and the same must be demonstrably reflected in the order
itself.

(iii) The District Magistrate did not conduct any independent inquiry into the
source of income of the respondent before passing the order, as mandatorily
required under Rule 36 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities Prevention Rules, 2021, which requires a thorough investigation
of the property of the gangster and the source of its acquisition, including a
                                                           CRLA No. 200 of 2024
                                5


detailed description of known sources of income, ancestral property, and
collected evidence of economic transactions.

(iv) The beet information registered against the respondent was found to be
false and was registered only to harass him. Everyone in the area was
acquainted with the brick kiln and building material shop of the respondent's
family, which itself proves that the beet information was not true.

(v) The vehicle was attached while the respondent was in judicial custody.
He was not served with any notice of attachment, and by the time he was
released in August 2023, the period for filing a representation under Section
15 of the Act had already lapsed. This procedural failure caused grave
prejudice to the respondent.

(vi) The respondent produced documentary evidence — including the
registration certificate of proprietorship of Raju Building Material, GST
receipts, and evidence of regular tax filing — demonstrating that the vehicle
was purchased from legally earned income. The prosecution, on the other
hand, produced no detailed or credible record to counter this evidence.

(vii) As rightly observed by the learned Gangsters Court, the vehicles were
purchased much prior to the registration of criminal cases and imposition of
the Gangster Act upon the respondent. No nexus has been established
between the acquisition of the vehicle and the proceeds of any offence
triable under the Act.

C. The Rule of Law Cannot Yield to Mechanical Orders

22. The object of conferring power upon the court under Section 16 is
precisely to check arbitrary exercise of power by administrative authorities
and to ensure that no person is deprived of his property except in accordance
with law. The learned Gangsters Court has discharged this function
conscientiously and in accordance with the settled principles of law.

23. In the absence of any material beyond the police report, the District
Magistrate could not have legally ordered attachment of the respondent's
vehicle. As the Apex Court has held in a catena of cases, the Court is not
expected 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 can the property be held to be acquired as a result
of commission of an offence triable under the Act? This is a pivotal
                                                             CRLA No. 200 of 2024
                                  6


question, and the State has failed to answer it satisfactorily.

24. Furthermore, Rule 37(4) of the Rules of 2021 unequivocally provides
that the burden of proving that the property attached has not been acquired
by committing an offence is on the accused, but this burden shifts to the
respondent only after the prosecution first discharges its initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case with material evidence. In the present case,
the prosecution failed at the very first stage.

25. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021, pertaining to independence of mind in
gangchart proceedings, mandates that the competent authority shall exercise
its own independent mind. A rubber-stamp gangchart without any subjective
satisfaction recorded amounts to a failure of the authority to exercise its free
mind. The present case discloses precisely such a failure.

D. No Ground for Interference

26. This Court, sitting in appellate jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act,
does not lightly interfere with well-reasoned orders of the court below. The
order of the learned Gangsters Court dated 04.10.2023 is a speaking, well-
reasoned order, which has correctly appreciated both the legal position and
the factual matrix. It has correctly applied the principles laid down by this
Court in Badan Singh, Rajbir Singh Tyagi, and Smt. Kahkashan Parveen
(supra). No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is discernible in the
impugned order.

27. The State has been unable to point out any material error of law or fact in
the order of the learned court below that would warrant this Court's
interference. The mere fact that the respondent is named in multiple criminal
cases is not sufficient, standing alone, to justify attachment of property
acquired through lawful means.

28. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the present appeal filed
by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 is hereby
dismissed.

29. The order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 5, Mau in Miscellaneous Case No. 177/2023 is hereby affirmed.

30. The attachment order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate,
                                                                                              CRLA No. 200 of 2024
                                                                        7


                                    Mau under Section 14(1) of the Act, attaching vehicle No. UP 54 AL/4930
                                    (Spendour Plus Motorcycle) in the name of the respondent Vinay Rai @
                                    Raja Rai, stands set aside.

                                    31. The District Magistrate, Mau is directed to release the said vehicle
                                    forthwith in favour of the respondent/claimant Vinay Rai @ Raja Rai on
                                    such conditions as he thinks fit.

                                    32. It is, however, made clear that this judgment shall not be construed as an
                                    expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal cases pending
                                    against the respondent, which shall be decided strictly on their own merits
                                    and in accordance with law.

                                    33. Let a certified copy of this order be made available to the parties
                                    expeditiously.

                                    January 7, 2026
                                    Pravesh Mishra
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad