RAMLAKHAN JAISWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4584 of 2026

Ramlakhan Jaiswal
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A.

Court No. - 81
                   HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State of U.P.

2. Present application under section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing the entire proceedings of the Case No.897 of 2026 (State vs.
Ramlackhan Jaiswal), under Section 14(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act, 1986), Police Station Cantt. District Gorakhpur, as well as
impugned order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate,
Gorakhpur in Case No.897 of 2026 (State vs. Ramlackhan Jaiswal),under
Section 14(1) of the Act, 1986, arising out of Case Crime No.172 of 2025,
under Section 2(b)(i), (iv), (viii)/3(1) of the Act, 1986, Police Station
Cantt. District Gorakhpur.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant was falsely implicated in the Gangster Act, 1986 and a false FIR
was lodged against him as Case Crime no.172 of 2025, under
Sections under Section 2(b)(i), (iv), (viii)/3(1) of the Act, 1986. It is also
submitted that the applicant has obtained bail in base case as well as in
Case Crime No.172 of 2025. It is also submitted that proceedings under
Section 14(3) of the Act, 1986 was initiated against the applicant and
notice under Section 14(1) was issued by the District Magistrate on
19.08.2025. Thereafter, another notice was issued on 17.09.2025 and
now 3rd notice has been issued by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on
                                                       NA528 No. 4584 of 2026
                               2


22.01.2026, which is the impugned notice and the same has been
challenged herein. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the applicant is being prosecuted under the Act, 1986 only on the
basis of pendency of a solitary case. The notices issued by the District
Magistrate itself shows that the same was issued without application of
mind. The act of District Magistrate is illegal, arbitrary and
discriminatory. The malicious prosecution has been lodged against the
applicant. He prays that considering the aforesaid facts, notice dated
22.01.2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that
three months time for filing reply was granted by the District Magistrate
vide impugned notice dated 22.01.2026. The applicant instead of filing
reply, preferred the present application under Section 528 BNSS,
therefore, the present application is not maintainable against the
impugned notice dated 22.01.2026. The alternative efficacious remedy is
available to the applicant and he should have filed his reply before the
District Magistrate.

5. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

6. As per Section 14(1) of the Act, 1986, if the District Magistrate has
reason to believe that any property, whether movable or immovable, in
possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of a
commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment
of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been
taken by any Court.

7. As per Section 15 of the Act, 1986 where any property is attached
under Section 14, the claimant thereof may, within three months from the
date of knowledge of such attachment, make a representation to the
District Magistrate showing the circumstances in and the sources by
which such property was acquired by him. If the District Magistrate is
satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made under sub-section (1)
he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and thereupon
such property shall be made over to the claimant. But where no
                                                                                            NA528 No. 4584 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    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.

                                    8. On receipt of the reference made under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of
                                    the Act, 1986, the learned trial court (Gangster Act) shall fix a date for
                                    inquiry and give notices thereof to the person concerned and thereafter the
                                    court shall hear the parties and receive the evidence produced by them
                                    and would decide whether the property was acquired by the gangster as a
                                    result of commission of an offence triable under this Act and shall pass
                                    such order under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the
                                    circumstances of the case. If upon such enquiry, the Court finds that the
                                    property was not acquired by the gangster as a result of commission of
                                    any offence triable under this Act, it shall order for release of the property
                                    of the person from whose possession it was attached. In any other case the
                                    Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of the property
                                    by attachment, confiscation or delivery to any person entitled to the
                                    possession thereof, or otherwise. The order passed by the court concerned
                                    under Section 17 of the Act, 1986 is an appealable order under Section 18
                                    of the Act, 1986. Therefore, applicant without adopting due process of
                                    law, has challenged the impugned notice dated 22.01.2026 before this
                                    Court.

                                    9. The application under Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable since the
                                    applicant has efficacious alternative remedy to appear before the District
                                    Magistrate and he may file his representation within a period of three
                                    months from the date of his notice of attachment. The applicant is at
                                    liberty to appear before the District Magistrate and he may file his
                                    representation/objection, if so advised.

                                    10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present application under
                                    Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.



                                                                                        (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    February 18, 2026
                                    Nitendra




Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad