news details |
|
|
| Interlocutory orders in UAPA cases not open to appeal under NIA Act: DB | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 22: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that interlocutory orders passed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot be challenged under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act. The Court dismissed an appeal filed by two accused in a terror-related case who had sought release of their seized vehicle.
The matter dates back to November 27, 2023, when police at Srigufwara, along with Army's 3 RR unit, intercepted two men during a naka at Mehand-Satkipora Crossing. The accused - Yasir Ahmad Bhat of Jablipora and Mehraj-ud-Din Dar of Sirhama, Bijbehara - were allegedly found carrying 90 live AK-47 rounds and a live hand grenade. Investigators claimed the duo had links with the banned terror outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba (TRF) and used a load carrier (JK03L/4982) for movement linked to terror activities. The vehicle was subsequently seized.
The accused argued that the vehicle was purchased on loan and was the family's sole source of income. Their application before the Special UAPA Court at Anantnag was dismissed in January 2025, prompting an appeal before the High Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, while pronouncing judgment reserved on September 8, held that Section 25 of the UAPA provides a complete statutory mechanism for seizure, confirmation, and appeal through the Designated Authority and Special Court. The Court observed that the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, acting as Designated Authority, has already issued notice to the registered owner and proceedings are pending. An order rejecting release of a seized vehicle is interlocutory in nature and not open to appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act. "Entertaining such appeals would amount to usurping the powers of the Designated Authority," the Bench remarked, stressing that remedies exist within the UAPA framework.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and vacated all interim directions, clarifying that the appellants may pursue their case before the Designated Authority and, if necessary, approach the Special Court and later the High Court under Section 28 of the UAPA. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
