Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79964
Court No. - 20 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10821 of 2024
Applicant :- Akhlaq Ahmad @ Haseen Gaddi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari,Shakti
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Singh Sangwan,J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 195 of 2021 under Section 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 511 of IPC at Police Station - Kotwali, District-Sitapur, the properties of the petitioner were attached, description of which is House Nos. 401 and 430. The said houses were sealed by the police.
2. Counsel submits that these are the residential units and it will be a matter of final adjudication of the main trial whether the same were acquired by adopting illegal means.
3. Counsel submits that the petitioner has purchased the property by taking loan from Axis Bank, Union Bank and L.I.C. of India and, therefore, during the Trial, he has sufficient evidence to lead to prove that the property has been purchased in a legal manner.
4. It is also submitted that the petitioner has submitted the Income Tax Returns showing his income. It is submitted that the petitioner/applicant has filed an application before the District Magistrate, Sitapur on 4.3.2022, however, till date, no decision has been taken.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner is without residence as the house is sealed and because of lapse of time, the articles lying inside the house are decaying.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decisions in Rajbir Singh Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR OnLine 2018 ALL 3533, Shanti Devi wife of Ram Deen Vs. State of U.P., 2007 LawSuit (All) 65 and in Criminal Appeal No. 1690 of 2009 (Maina Devi vs. State of U.P.) decided on 27.9.2013 to submit that before passing order of confiscation, there must be some nexus between criminal acts of the accused and the property acquired by him. Mere involvement in an offence is not sufficient to attach the property of an accused.
1
7. Counsel submits that in such circumstances, the property be released in favour of the applicant.
8. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the applicant is charged under Section 16 (2) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social (Prevention) Act, 1986 and, therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated. However, it is not disputed that over a period 02 years and 06 months, the matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector and no order has been passed.
9. In view of the same, this petition is required to be disposed of with a direction that the two properties mentioned above will be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Sitapur, who has passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2021.
10. This petition is allowed in view of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has not been able to dispose of the application for a period of two and a half years without assigning any reason as is reflected from the interim orders placed as Annexure 3 (collectively).
11. Needful be done within a period of 15 days from today. However, it will be open for the Deputy Commissioner to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.12.2024
DKS
2