E-Paper
Allahabad HC: DM must refer property release plea to court if rejecting it under Gangsters Act
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made the observation while quashing a March 9, 2026 order passed by the DM, Firozabad, rejecting a representation seeking release of attached property. The court remitted the matter to the DM for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Prefer HTon Google
The Allahabad high court has held that a district magistrate (DM) must refer a property release plea to the competent court under Section 16(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, if he rejects the plea for release of property attached under the Gangsters Act.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made the observation while quashing a March 9, 2026 order passed by the DM, Firozabad, rejecting a representation seeking release of attached property. The court remitted the matter to the DM for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The petitioner had challenged the DM’s order after his properties were attached on July 22, 2025 under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act. He subsequently moved an application under Section 15 seeking release of the property, but the DM rejected it.
The DM’s order referred to the criminal antecedents of Sushil Kumar alias Satta, stating that he had entered the world of crime in 2011 and that 19 cases had been registered against him. The cases allegedly involved offences including robbery, rioting, kidnapping, rape, criminal intimidation, house trespass, assault, threats to kill, gambling, illegal possession of arms, attempt to murder and murder.
The DM also recorded that immovable properties had allegedly been purchased in the name of Sushil Kumar’s wife using money acquired through criminal activities. It held that the representation failed to establish through concrete evidence that the properties had been acquired from a legitimate source of income and rejected the plea for their release.
However, in its September 22 order, the high court pointed out that Section 16(1) mandates the DM to refer the matter, along with his report, to the court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Gangsters Act if he does not release the property under Section 15(2).
The bench noted that no such reference had been made in the present case. The state counsel, on instructions, did not dispute this. Holding that the DM’s order was contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 16(1), the court quashed it.
The court directed the DM, Firozabad, to decide the petitioner’s representation for release of the property afresh in accordance with law within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The writ petition was accordingly allowed to that extent.
