Allahabad High Court Rules Against Attachment of Parent’s Property
The Allahabad High Court has recently clarified that property belonging to the parents of an absconding accused cannot be attached under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision came during an appeal challenging the attachment of two rooms, which the absconding accused had been using, but which belonged to his father [Faiyaz Abbas vs State of UP].
Court Overturns Trial Court’s Attachment Order
Justice Abdul Moin of the Allahabad High Court set aside the trial court’s order that had attached two rooms belonging to the father of the absconding accused. The trial court had previously issued the attachment order on the grounds that the accused had been residing in these rooms. However, the property in question was owned by the father, not the accused.
Legal Basis for Property Attachment
The High Court emphasized that Section 83 of the CrPC specifically permits the attachment of property that belongs to the proclaimed person, not to others. The Court noted that under Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 83, a court may attach movable or immovable property belonging to the absconding individual only. The judgment made clear that the trial court’s failure to establish that the attached property belonged to the accused violated this provision.
Details of the Case
The appeal was filed by Faiyaz Abbas, the father of Faiz Abbas, who is accused in a 2015 rape case. After Faiz Abbas became untraceable, the trial court issued a proclamation and ordered the attachment of the two rooms he had occupied at his father’s house. Despite objections from Faiyaz Abbas, asserting that he was the sole owner of the property and that his son had no claim to it, the trial court proceeded with the attachment.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court criticized the trial court for disregarding the ownership dispute and for its flawed reasoning in ordering the attachment. The Court likened the situation to an example where an absconding person resides in rented property; the mere fact of residence does not grant authority to seize or attach the rented property, as it does not belong to the absconding person.
Outcome of the Appeal
In light of these observations, the High Court allowed the appeal and nullified the attachment order, reiterating that only property belonging to the accused can be lawfully attached under Section 83 of the CrPC.
Advocates Mohd Kumail Haider, Bal Keshwar Srivastava, and Ravi Patel represented the appellant, while Advocate Angad Vishwakarma appeared for the State.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
