Property not belonging to accused cannot be attached under UAPA: Court

25/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 24: The Special Court under the NIA Act in Jammu has held that property not belonging to an accused cannot be attached under Section 33 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, rejecting the National Investigation Agency's plea to attach a residential house in Srinagar in the Shala Kadal terror case.
Special Judge under the NIA Act Prem Sagar rejected the NIA's application seeking attachment of a six-marla-and-116-square-feet residential property at Estate Zoonimar, Srinagar, registered in the name of Shameema, mother of accused Ahran Rasool Dar alias Tota.
The application was filed under Section 33(1) of the UAPA in case RC-01/2024/NIA/JMU, arising from a case registered at Shaheed Ganj police station in Srinagar in connection with the killing of two non-locals at Shala Kadal.
The court noted that charges had been framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC, Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the UAPA and Sections 7/27 of the Arms Act. The trial is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The NIA had argued that although the property was registered in the name of Dar's mother, it was allegedly used for keeping the weapon of offence and planning the attack.
According to the prosecution, Dar had allegedly kept the weapon inside the house, photographed it on a green-and-golden coloured mat and sent the photograph to co-accused Adil Manzoor Langoo through his mobile phone. The mat was subsequently seized from Dar's house, while a CFSL Chandigarh report found similarities between the material visible in the photograph and the seized exhibits, the court noted.
The mobile phone allegedly used to send the photograph was also recovered from Dar, while the weapon was stated to have been recovered from the house of co-accused Langoo.
Special Public Prosecutor K.S. Pathania, along with Public Prosecutors Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma, represented the NIA and sought attachment of the property during pendency of the trial.
The court proceeded against the accused ex parte after recording that notice had been served upon him in jail but he did not appear.
The prosecution contended that the property had allegedly been used for unlawful activities and relied upon the UAPA provisions relating to proceeds of terrorism, besides citing a judgment of the Madras High Court on the scope of Section 33.
The Special Judge, however, observed that Section 33 permits attachment during trial of movable or immovable property belonging to a person accused of offences under Chapters IV or VI of the UAPA.
The court pointed out that there was nothing on record to establish that the property belonged to Ahran Rasool Dar. Instead, the house stood registered in the name of his mother Shameema, who was not an accused in the case.
"From the available record," the court observed, the contentions raised by the NIA were not well founded in view of the applicable legal provisions.
Holding the NIA application "devoid of any merit", the Special Judge rejected the plea for attachment of the Srinagar property.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty