PRAYAGRAJ, March 18 -- The Allahabad high court has set aside the attachment of immovable property belonging to one Mansoor Ansari, cousin of late gangster Mukhtar Ansari, observing that the state failed to establish any nexus between the commission of any offence and the construction of the building/shops in question. Allowing the criminal appeal filed by Ansari, justice Raj Beer Singh clarified that the state cannot seize property under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on mere allegations or simply because an individual is related to a known gangster. The special judge Ghazipur had previously upheld the DM's decision to attach Ansari's shops and building, valued at Rs 26,18,025, on the allegation in a police report that the same were 'benami' assets of late Mukhtar Ansari. Accordingly, the single judge examined section 14 of the Gangsters Act (attachment of property) to note that the DM's power to attach property is not absolute and there must be material for objective determination by him that a person either, as a member, leader or organiser of a gang, acquired any property as a result of the commission of any offence mentioned under the Gangsters Act. The court further clarified that the expression "reason to believe" appearing under section 14 is a higher level of state of mind and cannot be equated to mere suspicion or doubt and that it contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation. After hearing Upendra Upadhyay and the government advocate, the court found that the DM had failed to record a satisfaction that was legally sound, which made the attachment "wholly arbitrary". Furthermore, the court noted that the initial burden is always upon the state to satisfy that the property which is sought to be seized was acquired as a result of the commission of an offence mentioned in the Act. The court categorically stated that it is not a requirement of law that an aggrieved person seeking release of properties from attachment must prove the source of income to acquire the properties in question. The court held that there must be a nexus between the commission of any offence and the acquisition of the property and this nexus has to be proven by the State at the first instance. Similarly, the High Court also pulled up the special judge (Gangsters Act) for 'miserably' failing to consider the evidence produced by the appellant and for rejecting his version without assigning any proper reasoning. Considering the entire facts, the court found that the impugned order was against facts and law and thus, was liable to be set aside. Thus, the high court in its judgment dated March 12 set aside the judgment of the Ghazipur special judge and the attachment orders of the district magistrate. The court directed the State to release the disputed property forthwith....