Prayagraj: Allahabad High Court has canceled the attachment of property of late gangster’s cousin. mukhtar ansariNoting that the State failed to establish any connection between the commission of any offense and the construction of the buildings/shops in question. Allowing the criminal appeal filed by Mansoor Ansari, Justice Raj Bir Singh in his judgment on March 12 said the state cannot confiscate property under the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, merely on the basis of allegations or merely because a person is related to a known gangster. Ghazipur special judge had earlier upheld the DM’s decision to attach Mansoor’s shops and building worth Rs 26,18,025 on the allegation that these were ‘benami’ properties of Mukhtar. Accordingly, the court examined Section 14 of the Gangster Act and found that the power of the DM to attach property is not absolute. The court said, “There must be some nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any crime is not sufficient to attach his property, as it is necessary to find out whether his acquisition of property was the result of the commission of any offense included in the Gangster Act, being a gangster.” The court further clarified that the expression “reason to believe” falling under Section 14 is a high standard of state of mind and cannot be construed merely by suspicion or apprehension. It found that the DM failed to record the satisfaction which was legally correct, which made the attachment “completely arbitrary”. It was also noted that the initial burden is always on the State to satisfy itself that such property was acquired by reason of an offense specified in the Act. The court said that it is not required in law that a victim has to prove the source of income to acquire the property in question. The High Court also noted that Mansoor Ansari has no criminal history. While a case was registered against Mukhtar Ansari in 2007, the appellant was not named as an accused in that case. The court said that the impugned (under challenge) order was based on estimates and presumptions. The High Court also pulled up the Special Judge (Gangster Act) for ‘miserably’ failing to consider the evidence presented by the appellant and rejecting his version without assigning any proper reason. Trust on Babu Khan Vs. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the HC reminded that a court dealing with a reference under Section 16 of the Act does not have the authority to act as a “post office or mouthpiece” of the State or District Magistrate. The court directed the respondent State to immediately release the disputed property.