The Allahabad High Court has quashed a District Magistrate’s order refusing to release property attached under the Gangsters Act, holding that a DM who declines release under Section 15 must refer the matter, with his report, to the competent court under Section 16(1).
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the March 9, 2026 order of the District Magistrate, Firozabad rejecting an application for release of property attached under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Gangsters Act) [Pooja Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others].
A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, in an order dated September 22, 2026, allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated and remitted the matter to the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner’s representation afresh, in accordance with law, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Background of the case
The petitioner’s properties were attached on July 22, 2025 under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act. She then applied under Section 15 for their release. By the impugned order, the District Magistrate rejected that representation, acting in purported exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Act.
The District Magistrate’s order referred to a case registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act against Sushil Kumar alias Satta and others, and recorded that 19 cases had been registered against him since 2011, for offences including robbery, rioting, kidnapping, rape, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder and murder. It stated that immovable properties had been bought in his wife’s name with money acquired through crime, that the petitioner had produced no concrete evidence that they were acquired from a legitimate source of income, and that the attachment order of July 22, 2025 should therefore stand.
The statutory mandate
The Bench reproduced Section 16(1) of the Act, which provides:
“16(1). Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act.”
Applying the provision, the Court held:
“As per the mandate of Section 16(1) of Gangsters Act, the District Magistrate in the event of declining to release the attached property on an application under Section 15(1) of Gangsters Act is liable to refer the matter to the court having jurisdiction.”
Why the order was quashed
The Court noted that, in the case before it, the District Magistrate had made no such reference. The Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, did not dispute this. The Court accordingly held that the impugned order was “in the teeth of” Section 16(1) and quashed it, remitting the representation to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision as per law.
Why The Gangsters Act Order Matters
The order clarifies the procedure that follows when a District Magistrate does not release property attached under the Gangsters Act: rejection of the Section 15 representation is not the end of the District Magistrate’s role, and the matter must go with his report to the court having jurisdiction to try offences under the Act. The Court did not examine whether the properties were in fact acquired through crime, and the District Magistrate’s findings on the accused’s antecedents and the source of the funds are yet to be tested in the proceedings the Act provides for.
Case Title: Pooja Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others [Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12459 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: September 22, 2026
For the Petitioner: Vinay Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Additional Government Advocate
