SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal seeking release of a vehicle seized in a militancy-related case in Kupwara, holding that the petitioner had no legal standing and had approached the court with “unclean hands” by making contradictory claims and suppressing material facts.
The division bench comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma upheld an earlier order of the Special Court designated under the NIA Act, which had rejected the plea for release of the vehicle linked to an FIR registered under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Arms Act.
The case stems from the arrest of an alleged over-ground worker, Fareed Ahmad Chouhan, during an anti-militancy operation in Kupwara in January 2022. Investigations led to the recovery of arms, ammunition and foreign currency from his possession, and the seizure of a TATA Nexon vehicle allegedly used for transporting illegal weapons.
The appellant, a resident of Trehgam in Kupwara, had claimed ownership of the vehicle and sought its release on the grounds that she remained the registered owner and that the vehicle was not directly involved in militancy-related activities. She also argued that the accused was in custody, entitling her to reclaim possession.
However, the court found that the appellant had already executed a power of attorney in favour of the accused and had transferred possession of the vehicle against partial payment. The bench noted that this effectively weakened her claim over the vehicle, as she had voluntarily parted with its custody.
The court also took serious note of the appellant’s failure to produce the original power of attorney despite repeated directions. It observed that the petitioner had taken “contradictory and prevaricated stands,” which undermined her credibility and amounted to misrepresentation before the court.
In its judgment, the bench held that once possession had been transferred and consideration accepted, the appellant could not reclaim the vehicle under the cover of her status as registered owner. It further observed that the plea appeared to be an attempt to secure release of the vehicle through indirect means, potentially prejudicing the prosecution’s case.
Dismissing the appeal, the court ruled that it was “misconceived” and suffered from suppression of facts, adding that the petitioner had abused the process of law.
At the same time, the court flagged a significant lapse on the part of the investigating agency, noting that no confiscation proceedings had been initiated against the vehicle despite allegations that it was procured through proceeds linked to militancy. The bench directed attention to provisions under Chapter V of the UAPA, which mandate action in such cases.
The court ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, for necessary compliance, particularly with regard to handling assets suspected to be linked to terror financing.
The ruling underscores the court’s strict approach in cases involving militancy-linked assets, while also highlighting procedural gaps in enforcement actions by investigating agencies.
