Prayagraj, March 17 The Allahabad High Court has overturned an order to seize immovable property in Ghazipur belonging to Mansoor Ansari, the cousin of gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari, stating that the state failed to establish any connection between the commission of any crime and the construction of the building/shops in question.
Allowing the criminal appeal filed by Mansoor Ansari, Justice Raj Beer Singh said that the state cannot seize property under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based solely on bald allegations or simply because an individual is related to a known gangster.
The special judge, Ghazipur, had upheld the decision of the district magistrate to seize Mansoor Ansari's shops and building, valued at Rs 26,18,025, on the allegation in a police report that the properties were "benami" assets of the late Mukhtar Ansari.
The high court said that the DM's power to seize property is not absolute, and there must be objective evidence for him to determine that a person, either as a member, leader, or organizer of a gang, acquired any property as a result of the commission of any offence mentioned in the Gangster Act.
"There must be a connection between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to seize his property, as it is necessary to determine whether his acquisition of property was a result of the commission of any offence mentioned in the Gangster Act, given that he is a gangster," the court observed in its judgment passed on March 12.
It further stated that the expression "reason to believe" appearing under section 14 of the Gangster Act represents a higher level of state of mind and cannot be equated to mere suspicion or doubt, and that it contemplates an objective determination based on careful consideration.
The court also noted that the initial burden is always on the state to prove that the property being seized was acquired as a result of an offence mentioned in the Act.
It held that there must be a connection between the commission of any offence and the acquisition of the property, and this connection must be proven by the state at the first instance.
The high court also noted that in this case, the applicant, Mansoor Ansari, himself had no criminal history under the Gangster Act.
While a case was registered against Mukhtar Ansari in 2007, the appellant was not an accused in that matter. In view of this, the court categorically stated that "merely because the appellant is the cousin of Mukhtar Ansari, it cannot be a ground to seize his property."
It further noted that there was absolutely no material to show that the appellant was associated with any gang or that there was any "connection" between a criminal act and the property acquired.
The court found that the impugned order was against facts and law, and was therefore liable to be overturned.
Overturning the order of the Ghazipur special judge who upheld the DM's seizure orders, the high court directed the state government to release the disputed property forthwith.