Allahabad High Court
Shabnam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 1 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:51853
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 28 of 2025
Shabnam
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Kaushal Kishore Tewari, Shakti
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Counter affidavit filed today by learned Counsel for the State is taken on record.
Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant criminal appeal under Section 18 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1986') is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 9, Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 29 of 2022 (Shabnam Vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by learned District Magistrate, Sitapur dismissing the representation under Section 15(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention), Act, 1986, has been confirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 01.01.2021 during course of maintaining the law & order, it allegedly came into the knowledge of the police that the husband of the appellant alongwith his brothers are involved in criminal activities and have formed a criminal gang and they are committing the offence for pecuniary, temporal, basic advantages and for gaining the money. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged bearing Case Crime No. 3 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act which was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur on 01.01.2021.
He argued that, in fact, the appellant has a self owned business and she was never involved in committing any offence. He further submits that the appellant is not named in the First Information Report and there is no nexus to any criminal activity as well as the property acquired by her. He added that under suspicion, the police attached the property of the appellant, she moved an application under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986 and the same was rejected by the learned trial court in an erroneous manner. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the fact that the learned trial court has failed to consider that the appellant is a self employed businesswoman and she has purchased the land in question in the year, 2009, whereas the First Information Report has been lodged in the year, 2021 and the said property is acquired much prior to the alleged offence, stated to have been committed. He submitted that the learned trial court has also ignored the settled law that before passing of the order of confiscation, it has to search out, as to whether there is some nexus between the criminal act of the accused and the property acquired by him/her.
In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the case of Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in [AIR OnLine 2018 Alld. 3533] and in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. State of U.P. reported in [2007 Law Suit (All) 65] and has submitted that the present matter is squarely covered with the ratio of judgments aforesaid.
Concluding his argument, he submits that since there is no involvement of the present appellant of any kind, in alleged offence, as is narrated in the First Information Report and further the appellant is wife of the accused, who is named in the First Information Report and whose property was confiscated and has been released subsequently but the property of the appellant, which was attached, has been declined to be released on erroneous consideration, thus, submission is that the order impugned dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 9, Sitapur and the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by learned District Magistrate, Sitapur, may be quashed.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the orders impugned, as the appellant is wife of the main accused, who is named in the First Information Report and who had formed a gang and had acquired certain properties. He has also drawn attention towards the finding of the learned trial court that the appellant had failed to demonstrate before the trial court that the said property is acquired other than the means of the properties, arising out of the offence, for which an FIR is lodged. Thus, submission is that no interference is warranted.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the appellant is a woman and as per contention of learned counsel for the appellant, she has self owned business and had acquired the land in the year, 2009, whereas the First Information Report, under Section 2/3 of Act, 1986, is lodged in the year, 2021. This Court has also noticed the fact that the appellant is not named in the First Information Report and there is no allegation for forming of any gang or being the member or leader of the gang, and being wife of one of the alleged member of the gang, her property has been attached. It is also noticed that, the property which was acquired by the husband of the appellant, who was named in the First Information Report, has already been released and the property of other members or the gang leaders, named in the FIR No. 3 of 2021, has also been released.
This Court has also examined the finding of the learned trial court wherein the trial court has failed to materially come to the conclusion that there is some nexus in between the criminal act alleged to have been committed by the appellant and the property which is acquired by her. The case of the present appellant is also covered with the ratio of the judgments, rendered in the case of Rajbir Singh Tyagi (supra) and Smt. Shanti Devi (supra).
Consequently, the order impugned dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 9, Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 29 of 2022 (Shabnam Vs. State of U.P. and another), is hereby set aside.
The liberty is given to the appellant to move a fresh application under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1986 against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur, within a period of 15 days and if such an application is moved, that shall be considered and decided in the light of observations made herein-above by this Court, within a further period of 60 days.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is allowed.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
September 1, 2025
kkv/
