Navi Mohmad vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated January 28, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act) affirming the orders of the District Magistrate, was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. The Court found force in the submissions of the appellant. Specifically, it noted that no FIR was registered separately under the Act, 1986, nor was the Gang Chart approved after the filing of the charge sheet. The Court observed that the Gang Chart was approved even before the filing of the charge sheet in the base case (Crime No. 442 of 2022). The appellant's submission that he is a businessman with valid sources of income and acquired the vehicle on loan, paying EMIs, was considered reasonable. The Court concluded that the District Magistrate's decision to attach the property was not based on reason but was arbitrary. The Court also noted the appellant's lack of criminal history and the fact that the attached property was not proven to be acquired through criminal means. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Special Judge and the orders of the District Magistrate for attachment and auction. The Court directed that the attached property be released in favor of the appellant forthwith.

Facts

The appellant, Navi Mohd., is appealing against a judgment and order dated January 28, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act) in Moradabad. This order affirmed the District Magistrate's earlier orders dated September 29, 2023, and January 10, 2024, which attached the appellant's property and dismissed his objections, respectively. The attachment was made under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The appellant contends that the prosecution was initiated arbitrarily and in violation of court guidelines. He argues that the charge sheet under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act was filed without a prior FIR under that Act. The appellant claims the attached properties, including a motorcycle, tractor, and a Tata Tipper, were purchased with legally earned money and bank loans, and the Tipper was not involved in the alleged crime. He also highlights that he has no criminal history and that the Gang Chart was approved before the charge sheet was filed in the base FIR.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attachment of the appellant's property under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, was valid, considering the absence of a separate FIR under the Act and the alleged arbitrary approval of the Gang Chart prior to the filing of the charge sheet in the base case (Crime No. 442 of 2022)? 2. Whether the District Magistrate had sufficient material to objectively determine that the appellant, as a member, leader, or organizer of a gang, acquired the attached property as a result of committing offenses enumerated under the Gangsters Act, thereby establishing a nexus between his criminal acts and the acquired property? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the prosecution was launched illegally and arbitrarily, violating court judgments and guidelines. He asserted that no FIR under the Gangsters Act was registered, and the charge sheet was filed without proper judicial application of mind. The appellant claimed the property was acquired through legitimate earnings and bank loans, and the Tipper was not involved in the alleged crime. He also pointed out that the District Magistrate passed the attachment order without providing an opportunity for hearing and that the police report was factually incorrect. Furthermore, the appellant submitted that he has no criminal history and that the Gang Chart was approved before the charge sheet was filed in the base case, which he argued is illegal. He relied on the fact that other individuals involved in the base FIR had their vehicles released, and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The State contended that the appellant is a man of criminal mind involved in anti-social activities, causing terror in the area, and that he purchased several properties with illegally collected money. The District Magistrate attached the property based on this information.