New Delhi: A Delhi Court has ordered attachment of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)’s Srinagar office in a UAPA case probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against separatist Nayeem Ahmad Khan.
Khan, who has been in judicial custody since August 14, 2017, has been accused of “creating unrest” in Kashmir by the NIA.
He was arrested on July 24, 2017 and denied bail in December last year.
Additional Sessions Judge Shailender Malik of Patiala House Courts passed the order on NIA’s plea under section 33(1) of UAPA to attach the Hurriyat office.
“The immovable property that is the building situated at Raj Bagh, Srinagar, which was earlier used as Hurriyat office is ordered to be attached. Necessary legal process be carried out in this regard,” the court said.
The NIA told the court that the property was partly owned by Khan along with his associates.
According to the NIA, the office situated at Rajbagh was used to strategise different protests, funding activities of stone pelting on security forces, recruiting of unemployed youth to carry out “unlawful activities as well as terrorist activities” to create an unrest J&K to wage war against the Government of India.
Khan’s counsel submitted that the office was only partly owned by him whereas other co-owners were not given any notice before attachment.
Noting that the property was being used as Hurriyat’s office, the court said that there were many other accused persons besides Khan who were affiliated to the office, who were also facing prosecution in the matter.
The court also noted that the evidence collected during investigation was duly examined at the stage of framing of charge by a predecessor court, which concluded to frame charges against Khan and other accused persons.
“In that process it is needless to observe that in case any other person who claims to be co-owner and consider that such process of attachment is not proper, can avail legal right in accordance with law,” the court said.
The court said that attachment of a property in itself does not amount to any bearing upon trial and that cannot be in any manner be considered as “pre-trial conclusion” or findings of punishment or offence against the accused.
“It simply means the property of the accused which may like to be forfeited to the State in case of him being convicted of offence of terrorist activities,” the court said.
It also said that section 33 of UAPA does not hinder the powers of court to attach any such property, which may be partly owned by the accused.
“In such situation taking into consideration the serious nature of the allegations as against A-5 itself (Khan), the fact that he is part owner of the property in question, cannot be a reason for not attaching the property when it is not even made clear as to who others were co-owners of that property,” the court said.
NIA had registered the FIR on a complaint by Ministry of Home Affairs alleging that based on “secret information” received from an informant, it was learnt that Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and various separatist leaders including the members of the Hurriyat Conference were raising funds “through hawala” and also had entered into conspiracy to cause violence in Kashmir.
The case alleges that there was a larger criminal conspiracy for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley by way of “pelting stones on the security forces, systematically burning of schools, damage to public property and for waging war against India.”
The case has been registered under Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 124 A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. Agencies