NAVI MOHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5078 of 2026

Navi Mohmad
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Ajay Kumar Singh, Amber Khanna,
                                 Ram Kripal, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 90
                    HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned AGA for the State.

2. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and
Order dated 28.01.2026, passed by Special Judge (Gangsters
Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad in
Criminal Misc. Case No.99/2024, Under Section 16(1) of The U.P.
Gangsters And Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Bhagatpur, District - Moradabad (State Vs. Navi Mohd.), which is
a reference made to the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Under Section
16(1) of The U.P. Gangsters And Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Gangsters Act), whereby the Orders of
29.09.2023, passed under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social
Activities (Prevention) Act to attach the property of Appellant as well as
the Order dated 10.01.2024, dismissing the representation(objection)
moved by the appellant, have been affirmed.


3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after the
enforcement of Gangsters Act in year 1986, in the history of 39 years,
first time the Police, Local Administration as well as the lower judiciary,
illegally, in arbitrary manner launched the prosecution against the
appellant in violation of several judgment of this Hon'ble Court,
guidelines, Government Orders as well as Rules, 2021. After approval of
                                                        CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                               2


Gang Chart without F.I.R. , the appellant was challaned, taken illegal
remand and thereafter he got bail. The Charge Sheet was submitted under
Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act without registration of F.I.R. of
Gangsters Act and the learned trial court illegally without jurisdiction in
cyclostyle manner took cognizance without application of judicial mind.


4. The police illegally, in arbitrary manner an without jurisdiction added
Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act in the F.I.R. of base case of Crime
No.442 of 2022. However, admittedly by the prosecution till date, no
F.I.R., under Section 3(1) of The U.P. Gangsters Act was registered
against the appellant. The learned trial court (Special Judge (Gangsters
Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad) while
dealing with reference made under Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of The
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (prevention) Act, 1986, (later
referred as Act, 1986 for the sake of brevity), the Court has to see whether
the property was acquired by a Gang as a result of commission of an
offence tribal under the Gangsters Act and has to enter into the question
and record his own finding on the basis of an inquiry held by him under
Section 16 of The Gangsters Act.


5. In the present case, the appellant has shown before the learned trial
court the source of money, whereby he had purchased the aforesaid
property by his own earning and finance by bank loan and he had repaid
the money by his income through E.M.I. The initial burden is always
upon State to satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary materials that
the appellant being a gangsters acquired the properties as a result of
commission of any offence mentioned in Section-2 of the Act. In the
present case State has utterly failed to do so.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the District
Magistrate by an order dated 29.09.2023, without providing an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant seized the property of the
appellant. Prior to the aforesaid order dated 29.09.2023, no inquiry was
made against the appellant and without opportunity of hearing to the
appellant, the aforesaid order of attachment dated 29.09.2023 was passed
by the District Magistrate, Moradabad. By the aforesaid Order dated
                                                      CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                                  3


29.09.2023, the following moveable properties were attached by the
District Magistrate, Moradabad which are as under:-

(1) Motorcycle Splender Plus - UP21CV-1849.
(2) Agricultural Tractor - UP21CC-2805.
(3) Tata Motors Goods Carrier (Tipper)-UP21BN-6249


7. Learned counsel has further submitted that at the time of attachment of
aforesaid moveable property, neither any notice nor any Order, under
Section 14 of the Act, 1986 dated 29.09.2023 was served to the appellant.
He has further submitted that the District Magistrate, Moradabad, passed
the aforesaid Order dated 29.09.2023, under Section 14(1) of the Act,
1986 for the attachment of the property of appellant on the basis of the
report of Police dated 20.09.2023. The Police have wrongly submitted the
report that Dumper belonged to the appellant was the case property of
Crime No. 442 of 2022, while in fact the Dumper never used by the
appellant in the aforesaid mining. More so, the property was not
recovered by the Police at the time of alleged incident. The property was
not found on the place of alleged incident because there was C.C.T.V.
Cameras and the CCTV footages were available with the Police, but the
appellant and his Dumper was not traced out. It is alleged that the
property was purchased by the appellant with legally earned money and
bank loan.


8. He has further submitted that against the aforesaid attachment order,
the appellant made representations, under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986.
The District Magistrate rejected the representation of the appellant and
affirmed the Order of attachment dated 29.09.2023, vide order dated
10.01.2024. Simultaneously, by the aforesaid order dated 10.01.2024, the
District Magistrate referred the matter to the Court of Special Judge
(Gangsters Act), under Section 16(1) of the Act, 1986. The appellant
approached to the learned trial court and again filed documents related to
the properties belonged to him and purchased by him through bank loan.
The Special Judge, Gangster Act, Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case
No.99/2004 (State of U.P. Vs. Navi Mohd.), in the reference made to the
Court, under Section 16(1) of the Act, 1986, whereby the orders of
                                                        CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                               4


District Magistrate, Moradabad dated 29.09.2023 for the attachment of
the property of the appellant under Section 14 of the Act and as well as
order dated 10.01.2024 dismissing the objection (representation) made by
the appellant, have been affirmed.


9. It is further submitted that the appellant have been falsely and
malafidely implicated in the present Gangsters Case, therefore, the
appellant challenged the proceeding of Gangsters Act before this this
Court in Application (U/S-482) No.42935 of 2023. This Court was
pleased to grant protection to the appellant by Order dated 1.12.2023. The
aforesaid Application (U/S-482) No.42935 of 2023 is still pending before
this Court and the order is still operating. He has further submitted that
the order dated 01.12.2023 and other orders, passed by this Court are
very well in the knowledge of District Magistrate, Moradabad, but despite
the aforesaid orders, the District Magistrate, Moradabad passed the order
of attachment, under Section 15 of the Act, 1986. During the course of
inquiry, the Special Judge (Gangster Act) was pleased to examine
Inspector, Sanjay Pratap Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted that the
seized article purchased by the appellant was much prior to the alleged
incident. He has further submitted as per law laid down and after going
through Section-2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, 1986, it appears that for taking
action under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1986 against a person, there must
be material for objective determination of the District Magistrate that he,
either, as a member, leader or organizer of a gang acquired any property
as a result of commission of any offences under the 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 act being a gang.

10. In the present case, the appellant has no criminal history and
involvement in any criminal activities except the present incident. The
decision of District Magistrate to attach the property must be based on
reason and not arbitrarily. He has further submitted that initial burden is
always upon the State to satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary
materials that the appellant being a gangsters acquired the properties as a
                                                           CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                                  5


result of commission of any offence mentioned in Section-2 of the Act,
1986. In the present case State has utterly failed to do so. He has further
submitted that the learned trial court while dealing with reference made
under Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of The Act, 1986, the Court has to
see whether the property was acquired by a Gang as a result of
commission of an offence tribal under the Gangsters Act and has to enter
into the question and record his own finding on the basis of an inquiry
held by him under Section 16 of The Gangsters Act. In the present case,
the appellant has shown before the learned trial court, the source of
money, whereby he had purchased the aforesaid property by his own
earning and finance by bank loan and he had repaid the money by his
income through E.M.Ι. The appellant was running his own business and is
regularly paying the GST and Income Tax to the Government. In support
of his defence, the appellant filed Income Tax Report showing his
income. The appellant was having enough source of income, by which he
had purchased the aforesaid vehicles much prior to the registration of
First Information Report of Case Crime No.442 of 2022. The inquiry,
under Section 16 of the Act, 1986, was not performed in accordance with
the proceeding and object of the Act and the provisions of Section-14, 15
and 17 of the Act, 1986, were also not followed in true spirit.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that a First
Information Report was lodged on 14.09.2022 at 8:37 A.M. by one Ashok
Kumar, as Case Crime No.442 of 2022. Initially the aforesaid F.I.R. was
registered, under Sections 147, 341, 352, 332, 504, 353, I.P.C. and
Section 21(4) of Khan Evam Khanij (Vikas Ka Viniyam) Adhiniyam,
Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, in respect of an incident
alleged to have taken place on 13.09.2022 at 8:05 Ρ.Μ. The aforesaid
F.I.R. was registered against the following persons:-


(i) Raees Pradhan, Son of Unknown R/o Fauladpur, Thakurdwara, Moradabad.
(ii) Waseem, Son of Unknown R/o Village Ratupura, Thakurdwara, Moradabad.
(iii) Rizwan, Son of Unknown R/o Unknown, Thakurdwara, Moradabad.
(iv) Irfan, Son of Unknown Resident of Sarwat Nagar, Thakurdwara, Moradabad.
(v) Dilshad, Son of Jaheer Alam, R/o Village Kamalpuri, Thakurdwara, Moradabad.
(vi) About 150 Unknown Persons.
                                                       CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                               6




12. The Appellant was not named in the aforesaid FIR. During the course
of investigation the Investigating Officer has added Section-384 and 395
I.P.C. and Section-3 of Lok Sampatti Nivaran Adhiniyam. The appellant,
after arrest, applied for his bail in Case Crime No.442 of 2022, under
Sections - 147, 341, 332, 352, 353, 504, 384, 395 I.P.C. and Section-21(4)
of Khan Evam Khanij (Vikas Ka Viniyam), Adhiniyam & Section-3 of
Lok Sampatti Nivaran Adhiniyam, which was rejected by the learned
Sessions Judge, Moradabad vide order dated 16.11.2022. The appellant
applied for his bail before this Court and ultimately granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 3.12.2022.


13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that during the
period of incarceration, it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the
police has taken his remand also in Crime No.442 of 2022, under Section
3(1) of the Act, 1986 on 18.10.2022. It is seriously objected by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Special Judge (Gangster
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge Court No.5, Moradabad in cyclostyle
manners granted remand of the accused persons including the appellant,
under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1986 without any F.I.R. under the
provisions of the Act, 1986. He has submitted that the said remand is
purely illegal. He has further submitted that in the Order Sheet, neither
they have disclosed the reason nor obtained the signature of the accused
persons present in the court. Even in several dates, name of accused
persons were not mentioned. The Police illegally, in arbitrary manner and
without jurisdiction added Section 3(1) of the Act,1986 in the F.I.R. of
base case of Crime No.442 of 2022. After adding Section 3(1) of the
Act,1986 in the base case of Crime No.442 of 2022, the appellant applied
for his bail before the learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional
District Judge-Vth, Moradabad, who allowed the Bail Application of the
appellant on 15.12.2022. He further submitted that, however, admittedly
by the prosecution till date, no F.I.R., under Section 3(1) of The Act,
1986 was registered against the appellant.


14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Investigating
Officer by concealing the material facts got approval of Gang Chart of the
                                                                 CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                                      7


appellant from the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate illegally, in
arbitrary manner vide Order dated 3.10.2022 approved the gang chart on
the basis of base case of Crime No.442 of 2022, under Sections- 147, 341,
332, 352, 353, 395, 384, 504 I.P.C., Section 21(4) of Khan Evam Khanij
Adhiniyam, & Section 3 of Lok Sampatti Nivaran Adhiniyam.

15. The Charge Sheet in the base case of Case Crime No.442 of 2022 was
submitted on 21.7.2023, while the District Magistrate in arbitrary manner
and in violation of Rule-5, 8 & 10 of The U.P. Gangsters Rule, 2021,
approved the Gang Chart on 3.10.022. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the Gang Chart was approved on 3.10.2022 and at that
time, there was no charge sheet was filed. The chart sheet was filed on
21.7.2023, hence approval of Gang Chart on 3.10.2022 is contrary to the
Rules of 2021. Rules, 5,8 and 10 of the Rules, 2021 are quoted below:-

"5. General Rules.-(1) To initiate proceedings under this Act, the concerned Incharge
of Police Station/Station House Officer/Inspector shall prepare a gang. chart
mentioning the details of criminal activities of the gang.
(2) The gang-chart will be presented to the district head of police after clear
recommendation of the Additional Superintendent of Police mentioning the detailed
activities in relation to all the persons of the said gang.
(3) The following provisions shall be complied with in respect of gang-charts:
(a) The gang-chart will not be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint
meeting of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police.
(b) There may be no gang of one person but there may be a gang of known and other
unknown persons and in that form the gang-chart may be approved as per these rules.
(c) The gang-chart shall not mention those cases in which acquittal has been granted
by the Special Court or in which the final report has been filed after the investigation.
However, the gang-chart shall not be approved without the completion of
investigation of the base case.
(d) Those cases shall not be mentioned in the gang-chart, on the basis of which action
has already been taken once under this Act.
(e) A separate list of criminal history, as given in Form No.-4, shall be attached with
the gang-chart detailing all the criminal activities of that gang and mentioning all the
criminal cases, even if acquittal has been granted in those cases or even where final
report has been submitted in the absence of evidence.
                                                                  CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                                     8


Along with the above, a certified copy of the gang register kept at the police station
shall also be attached with the gang-chart. In addition to the above, the information of
crime and gang members mentioned in the gang-chart will also be updated on
Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) portal and Crime and Criminal Tracking
Network System (CCTNS).

8. Stating unconfirmed or false information is prohibited.-(1) The Incharge of
Police Station/Station House Officer/Inspector shall not mention the cases as Part
Trial or Partial Trial (PT) without ascertaining the up-to-date status of the cases in the
gang-chart.
(2) No unconfirmed or false information shall be entered in the gang-chart.
(3) The latest status of the cases against the gang, which are being shown in the gang-
chart, regarding their pendency in the Special Court, the convictions or the stage at
which they are in the Court, must be clearly mentioned.
(4) The responsibility of recording the correct and true information shall lie on the
concerned Incharge of Police Station/Station House Officer/Inspector.
(5) On discovering an adverse situation, the Incharge of Police Station/Station House
Officer/Inspector shall be held liable for negligence under departmental and criminal
proceedings.

10. Records of Base Cases.-(1) Along with gang chart, the certified copy of the
charge sheet and recovery memo shall be attached compulsorily.
(2) Where the accused is not named in the First Information Report and document
discloses the way in which his name came to light and if something has been
recovered, a certified copy of the recovery memo shall be attached."


16. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
learned trial court on the aforesaid Charge Sheet, dated 21.07.2023,
without going through the material facts and evidence, available on
record, illegally in cyclostyle manner, took cognizance against the
appellant and other accused persons vide Order dated 30.08.2023.

17. In the present case, the base case is the F.I.R. of Case Crime No.442
of 2022, which was not registered under Section-3(1) of the Act, 1986.
This case has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1986 which
reads as under:

"2. Definitions.-
                                                                 CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                                      9


(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 of any other person, indulge in anti-social
activities, namely:


(i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), or
(ii) distilling or manufacturing or storing or transporting or importing or exporting or
selling or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other
intoxicants or narcotics or cultivating any plant, in contravention of any of the
provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910), or the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985), or any other law
for the time being in force, or
(iii) occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in
accordance with law, or setting-up false claims, for title or possession of immoveable
property whether in himself or any other person, or
(iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from
discharging his lawful duties, or
(v) offences punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls
Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956), or
(vi) offences punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act No. 3
of 1867), or
(vii) preventing any person from offering bids in auction lawfully conducted, or
tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf of any Government department, local body or
public or private undertaking, for any lease or rights or supply of goods or work to be
done, or
(viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any person of his lawful
business, profession, trade or employment or any other lawful activity connected
therewith, or
(ix) offences punishable under Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code, (Act No. 45 of
1860) or in preventing or obstructing any public election being lawfully held, by
physically preventing the voter from exercising his electoral rights, or

(x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communal harmony, or
(xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or
(xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or owners or occupiers of public or private
                                                                 CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                                    10


undertaking or factories and causing mischief in respect of their properties, or
(xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person to go to foreign countries on false
representation that any employment, trade or profession shall be provided to him in
such foreign country, or
(xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with intent to extort ransom, or
(xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any aircraft or public transport vehicle from
following its scheduled course:
xvi) offences punishable under the Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976,

(xvii) illegally transporting and/or smuggling of cattle and indulging in acts in
contravention of the provisions in the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960;
(xviii) human trafficking for purposes of commercial exploitation, bonded labour,
child labour, sexual exploitation, organ removing and trafficking, beggary and the like
activities;
(xix) offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1966;
(xx) printing, transporting and circulating of fake Indian currency notes;
(xxi) involving in production, sale and distribution of spurious drugs,
(xxii) involving in manufacture, sale and transportation of arms and ammunition in
contravention of Sections 5, 7 and 12 of the Arms Act, 1959;
(xxiii) felling or killing for economic, gains, smuggling of products in contravention
of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972,
(xxiv) offences punishable under the Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979;
(xxv) indulging in crimes that impact security of State, public order and even tempo of
life."

18. The base cases means the cases on the basis of which a gang-chart
has been prepared with the intention of taking action against the gang
under the Act.

19. As per Rule 5(3)(a), Gang Chart will not prove summarily, but after
due discussion in joint meeting of Commissioner/Police
Authorities/District       Magistrate/Senior      Superintendent         of
Police/Superintendent of Police. The documents clearly indicates that no
discussion was made in the joint meeting of the Police Authorities/District
Magistrate/Superintendent of Police as mandatory under Rule-5(3)(a) of
the Rules, therefore, the approval of Gang Chart is absolutely illegal and
                                                        CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                               11


arbitrary in manner and not sustainable in the eyes of law.


20. As per Rule 5(3)(c) of the Rules, the Gang Chart shall not be
approved without completion of investigation of base case. As per
documents (questionair) clearly indicates that the investigation was not
completed in the base case of Crime No.442 of 2022, under Sections 147,
341, 352, 332, 353, 384, 395 I.P.C., Section 21(4) of Khan Evam Khanij
Adhiniyam, on the date of approving the Gang Chart i.e. on 3.10.2022,
while according to the aforesaid Rule 5(3)(c) of the Rules, the Gang-Chart
shall not be approved without the completion of the investigation of 'Base
Case', therefore, the 'Gang-Chart' itself is illegal and arbitrary.


21. At the time of approving the Gang Chart by the District Magistrate on
3.10.2022, it is clear that at the time of approving the Gang-Chart, the
investigation was pending in Base Case of Case Crime No.442 of 2022,
while Charge Sheet was submitted on 21.07.2023 in the aforesaid base
case (Crime No.442 of 2022).


22. As per Rule-8 of the Rules, stating unconfirmed or false information
is prohibited and according to Rule 8, the Incharge of Police Station shall
not mention the cases as part trial or partial trial without ascertaining the
upto date status of the cases in the Gang Chart.

23. As per Rule 10(1) of the Rules, it is compulsory to the police to attach
a certified copy of charge sheet and recovery memo alongwith Gang
Chart. Admittedly, the certified copy of the charge sheet of base case of
crime No. 442 of 2022 was not annexed alongwith gang chart prior to its
approval. Therefore, the entire proceeding of approving the gang chart is
absolutely illegal and arbitrary. There is no FIR was registered by the
police after the aforesaid approval in Gangster Act.

24. The S.D.M. immediate reached at the place of alleged incident and
thereafter the aforesaid 4 vehicles (dumpers) sent to Mandi and at the
same time Raees Pradhan, along with 150 unknown persons came and
with the police force being just at a hand distance and already police
personnel being present at the place of incident like the police persons,
who stopped the dumper, the traffic police, the police persons, arrived
                                                        CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                               12


with SDM. As per FIR, the alleged accused persons started fighting with
and beating the police personnel present there. As per the prosecution
case that so many police persons were present and so many civilians, who
were fighting with them, resulting in no injury case. There is not a single
injured persons out of the named 5 accused and 150 unknown persons as
well as there is not a single police persons, who was injured in the quarrel
and fight with the 5 named accused and 150 unnamed accused.The
alleged incident took place on 13.9.2022 at 8.05 pm, while the FIR was
lodged on 14.9.2022 at 8:37 pm. The distance of police station from the
place of occurr3nce is 1 km. The prosecution did not explain the delay in
lodging the FIR, while the entire administration agency were present at
the place of alleged incident which clearly indicates that the entire
prosecution has not happened in the manner as alleged.

25. The appellant is not named in the FIR. he is resident of village
Kankarkheda, Police Station Dilari, district Moradabad. The village of the
appellant is about 18 km away from the place of alleged incident. The
appellant is a reputed businessman, he is running a Tyre Agency having
the Tyres of truck, cars and two wheelers under the name and style of M/s
Mehak Traders at Moradabad Highway. The said firm is having the
agency of Tyres of Bridgestone, Continental and J.K. Tyres. The
aforesaid firm of the appellant have the registration in GST. The appellant
is also paying the Income Tax. Photo copy of the ITR of the appellant is
filed. The appellant is respectable businessman and is law abiding citizen
of District Moradabad. The appellant was not present at the place of
alleged incident on the date and time of incident mentioned in the FIR.
The appellant was present at his own shop situated at about 15 km. from
the place of alleged incident. The appellant have three mobile number in
his name. The appellant is not concern with the Dumpers seized by the
inspecting team. The appellant is no concern with Raees Pradhan and
other accused persons mentioned in the FIR. Even, they are not relative,
friends of the appellant. The appellant has no connection with them.

26. The aforesaid vehicle Tata (Tipper) UP-21 BN 6249 (moveable
property), attached by the District Magistrate, Moradabad was purchased
by the appellant on finance by Indusind Bank for enhance his business
income. The appellant is having valid heavy motor vehicle commercial
                                                        CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                               13


licence. The aforesaid vehicle attached by the District Magistrate was not
involved in case crime No. 442 of 2022. The heavy vehicle so attached
and impounded are laying in open field under open skies being subjected
to heavy rain fall and damages, which if left unchecked would be
rendered useless and would amount to the complete and utter loss of
finances to the appellant.Therefore, the appellant made a reminder
representation to the District Magistrate, Moradabad on 27.11.2023,
requesting to the authorities to release the vehicles in favour of the
appellant. The District Magistrate vide order dated 10.1.2024 has
confirmed the order of attachment of the property of the appellant dated
29.9.2023. The police also did not prove to hold that the property was
acquired by the appellant by way of crime. No detail of such information
was provided to the District Magistrate, even the police did not prove that
the appellant is a member of any gang. The appellant further stated in the
representation that he also possessed agricultural land in his native village
and the house was constructed on the basis of income acquired from the
source of his business.

27. The counter affidavit has been filed by the learned AGA. He
submitted that the appellant is a man of criminal mind and is involved in
Anti-social activity and there is terror of the appellant in the area and due
illegal money collected by the appellant from anti-social activity, he
purchased several property and the District Magistrate attached the
property of the appellant vide its order dated 29.9.2023.

28. The appellant has also filed a rejoinder affidavit and reiterated the
avements raised by him in the appeal. It is true and correct that the
appellant is not named in the FIR. There is no registration of case under
the Act, 1986 against the appellant. There were 150 unknown persons
mentioned in base FIR and during investigation and even prior to
completion of investigation, prior to filing of the charge sheet, the Gang
chart was approved.

29. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a
reputed businessman and he has taken the vehicle on loan and he is
having sufficient source of income by way of his legal means. Learned
counsel for the appellant has also filed supplementary affidavit and stated
                                                      CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                              14


that in the category of unknown person of base FIR i.e. Saddik, his
vehicle was released by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act) vide
order dated 15.2.2024. Said order was challenged before this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 11705 of 2024 by the State of U.P. and that was also
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2025.

30. Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed order passed by this
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 12320 of 2024(State of U.P. Vs. Abid son
of Saddiq). This case was dismissed by this court on 21.11.2025. He has
further relied on the Criminal Appeal No. 12321 of 2024 (State of U.P.
Vs. Danish), that criminal appeal is also dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 21.11.2025. He has further filed order passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 12322 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Hamid @ Hamid
Husain), which is dismissed by this Court on 21.11.2025.

31. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the act
committed by the State are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and capriciously.
There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, neither any FIR
has been registered under the Act, 1986 separately nor Gang chart has
been approved after filing of the charge sheet. The Gang chart has been
approved even before filing the charge sheet of base case in case crime
No. 442 of 2022. Learned counsel for the appellant has reasonably
submits that he is business man and having valid source of money and
took the vehicle on loan and paying the EMI.

32. In view of all these consideration, the impugned order dated
28.1.2026, passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad in Criminal Misc.
Case No.99/2024, Under Section 16(1) of The U.P. Gangsters And Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bhagatpur,
District- Moradabad (State Vs. Navi Mohd.), is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad
for attachment and auction dated 29.9.2023 and 10.1.2024 are also hereby
set aside. Hence, the property attached from appellant, be released in his
favour forthwith without any delay in accordance with law.
                                                                                       CRLA No. 5078 of 2026
                                                                  15


                                    33. The criminal appeal is allowed, accordingly.




                                                                                        (Abdul Shahid,J.)
                                    September 3, 2026
                                    sfa/




Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad