Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted more time to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to respond on Hurriyat leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan’s plea challenging the trial court order directing the attachment of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) office in Srinagar in a UAPA case. 

During the hearing, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akshai Malik appearing for NIA submitted, "Unfortunetly, the investigation officer was not available. We are seeking 2 or 3 weeks more time to file a reply".

The bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal said, "NIA seeks time to file a reply to this application. Is granted 3 weeks from today....list after 4 weeks".

The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 12, 2023.

Notably, on July 6, the High Court had sought response of NIA on the plea. 

On the last hearing, Advocate Tara Narula appearing for Khan had submitted, "....My Lord! this concerns the scope of S. 33(1) of UAPA, which concerns attachment. I am accused in a UAPA case and I co-own property. I am alleged to be one of the 5 co-owners of the property, the other 4 co-owners are not accused in the trial. That property has been attached on an application by the prosecution (NIA) which I would contend is not maintainable and the attachment has been ordered though that property does not constitute proceeds of terrorism and the prosecution claims that it was not intended to be used for terrorism”.

She had contended that the attachment of the concerned property was indiscriminate because the property did not form part of the schedule of properties that was mentioned against Khan's name in the chargesheet and there were no allegations in respect of the property in question.

“My contention as far as S.33 of UAPA is concerned is three-fold. Firstly, term "property" in that Section has to be read in the context of the other provision of the chapter as well as the heading of the chapter within which it falls. The heading of the chapter is Forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism or any property intended to be used for terrorism”, she had added.

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Mridul had remarked, “This issue so far is res integra (a case or a question that has not been examined or passed upon)”. “We remember another matter pending before us. We’ll have to examine this, and this will have wider ramifications. We’ll have to hear it once and for all”, had added Justice Mridul.

However, the division bench also comprising of Justice Gaurang Kanth had refused to issue notice in the matter, as they were apprised by the counsel that there is a condonation of delay in filing the plea by some days. The court issued notice on the application of condonation of delay and sought NIA’s reply on it.

Khan has challenged the trial court order dated January 27, 2022. His plea stated that the prosecution has in no way made a case that would allege any misdoing in relation to the property in the past, present, or future and that the principles of natural justice stand violated in the present case.

Background

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shailender Malik of the Patiala House Court in Delhi recently ordered the attachment of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) office in Srinagar in a UAPA case being investigated by the NIA against Khan. “The immovable property i.e. building office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) situated at Raj Bagh, Srinagar which was earlier used as an office of APHC is ordered to be attached. Necessary legal process be carried out in this regard”, the court had said.

As per NIA, Khan was involved in a larger criminal conspiracy to cause disruption in the Kashmir valley by "pelting stones on security forces, systematically burning schools, causing damage to public property, and waging war against India."

Khan, who has been in judicial custody since August 14, 2017, has been accused of “creating unrest” in the Kashmir valley by the NIA. He was arrested on July 24, 2017. He has been registered under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, and 124A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, of 1967.

Case Title: Nayeem Ahmad Khan v. National Investigation Agency 

Statue: The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, The Indian Penal Code, and The Code of Criminal Procedure