Court directs fresh consideration of petitioner's application for release of attached property within two months, emphasizing mandatory referral to court upon rejection under Section 15
In a significant judgment delivered on September 22, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Ajay Bhanot and Divesh Chandra Samant) set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate (DM) of Firozabad that rejected the application for release of attached property under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 ("Gangsters Act"). The petitioner, Pooja Devi, had challenged the DM's order dated March 9, 2026, under which her properties, attached by an order dated July 22, 2025, under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act, were not released.
The Court found that the District Magistrate had erred in not following the mandatory statutory procedure as laid down in Section 16(1) of the Gangsters Act. According to this provision, if the DM does not release the attached property on an application under Section 15, he is required to refer the matter along with his report to the court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. In this case, after rejecting the petitioner's application for release, no such referral was made.
The Court observed that the failure to comply with the statutory mandate renders the DM's order unsustainable in law. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed.
Further, the Court remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate with clear directions to reconsider the petitioner's representation for release of the property afresh in accordance with law and to decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards embedded in the Gangsters Act to ensure fair consideration and judicial oversight when attached properties are sought to be released. It also clarifies the mandatory duty of the District Magistrate to refer unresolved cases to the competent court, thereby upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of persons whose properties have been attached.
Bottom Line:
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Where District Magistrate declines to release attached property on application under Section 15, he is mandatorily required under Section 16(1) to refer the matter with his report to the court having jurisdiction - Failure to make such reference renders the order unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s):
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 14(1), 15, 16(1)
Pooja Devi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990430
