In a significant ruling regarding the state’s power to seize assets under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order to attach immovable property belonging to Mansoor Ansari, the cousin of the late gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari.
Justice Raj Beer Singh, presiding over the criminal appeal, held that the state cannot seize property based on “mere bald allegations” or familial relationships without establishing a direct link between the property and the commission of an offense. The court has directed the state government to release the disputed shops and building in Ghazipur, valued at approximately ₹26.18 lakh, forthwith.
The matter arose following a police report alleging that Mansoor Ansari’s properties were ‘benami’ assets of Mukhtar Ansari, acquired through criminal earnings. Based on this report, the District Magistrate (DM) of Ghazipur ordered the attachment of the building and shops. This decision was subsequently upheld by a Special Judge in Ghazipur, prompting Mansoor Ansari to move the High Court.
The appellant contended that he had no criminal history under the Gangster Act and that the properties were not acquired through any illegal means. While a case had been registered against Mukhtar Ansari in 2007, Mansoor Ansari was not an accused in that matter.
The High Court scrutinized the District Magistrate’s exercise of power under Section 14 of the Gangster Act. The court emphasized that the DM’s authority to attach property is not absolute and must be based on an “objective determination.”
“There must be a nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him,” the court observed in its March 12 judgment. “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.”
Justice Singh further clarified the legal standard for seizure, noting that the expression “reason to believe” used in the Act signifies a “higher level of state of mind.” The court ruled that this cannot be equated to mere suspicion or doubt but requires “intelligent care and deliberation.”
A key point in the ruling was the lack of evidence connecting the appellant to any gang activity. The High Court noted that the initial burden of proof rests entirely on the state to satisfy that the property sought to be seized was acquired as a result of a scheduled offense.
Crucially, the court rejected the notion that a familial connection to a known criminal is sufficient grounds for state action. “Merely because appellant is cousin of said Mukhtar Ansari, it cannot be a ground to attach his property,” the court categorically remarked.
The Bench found that there was “absolutely no material” to show that Mansoor Ansari was associated with any gang or that his property was the product of a criminal act. Consequently, the court found the lower court’s order to be against both facts and law.
