Danish Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024CRLA/1729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of an application for release of properties attached under Section 14(1) of the Gangster Act belonging to the son of a Gangster Act accused. The court directed status quo on the attached properties until further orders and sought the State's explanation for bulldozing Nagar Palika shops where the appellant was only a tenant.

What did the court decide?

Status quo directed on attached properties till next date of listing; State to file counter affidavit/objections by 12.06.2024.

Danish Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1729 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Danish Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Maurya,Abhishek Yadav,Archana Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order of date 1.5.2024 vehemently submits that the court below has committed patent illegality in rejecting the application moved by the appellant for release of his properties which has been attached under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 while it was evident that the said property owned by the appellant have not been earned by committing any crime.

¶7

It is further submitted that the appellant is the son of the accused of Case Crime No. 3/21 under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act P.S. Kotwali City, Sitapur and thus there was no evidence to link the properties owned by the appellant to have been purchased from the proceeds of the crime allegedly earned by his father, namely, Akhlaque Ahmad.

¶8

It is also submitted that the properties which have been attached consist of plot of land, a motorcycle owned by the appellant and two shops which were in his possession as tenant owned by the Nagar Palika, Sitapur. It is also informed that the public authorities have earlier bulldozed one shop wherein coaccused- (brother of the appellant), namely, Shoaib Ahmad was only a tenant in that shop was owned by Nagarpalika Sitapur

¶9

Keeping in view a strange course adopted by the Public Authorities of District Sitapur of allegedly bulldozing the public properties which have been constructed by the State Exchequer. Matter requires consideration and it is provided that till the next date of listing, status-quo in strict sense as on today with regard to the properties attached in this case shall be observed. The matter requires consideration.

¶10

In this regard a copy of this order be immediately sent to the District Magistrate as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur for strict compliance.

¶11

List on 12.06.2024 , by which date the State may file counter affidavit/ objections also stating therein as to under what provision the properties which have been constructed by the Nagar Palika, Sitapur, wherein the appellant is shown to be a tenant may be bulldozed.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.5.2024 Muk

¶13

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Danish Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danish Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Sunil Kumar Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Chhailu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Kishor Apchari ka through Mother vs State of Up and other

Shailendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others