Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, seeking release of a vehicle seized in a terror case. The Bench held that once a statutory forum is provided under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, an appellant cannot bypass it by approaching the High Court under the NIA Act. It recorded that the UAPA establishes a complete adjudicatory framework, from seizure before the Designated Authority to appeal before the Special Court and further to the High Court.

The proceedings arose from an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging an order of the Special Judge, NIA Court, refusing to release a vehicle seized during investigation in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant contended that the vehicle was required for personal use, and that continued seizure caused hardship. It was argued that since the Special Court had rejected the request, the appeal lay to the High Court under the NIA Act.

Also Read: Marriage Liabilities Constitute Legal Necessity | Supreme Court Quashes Karnataka High Court Decree Upholding Partition | HUF Karta’s Sale Of Ancestral Land Held Valid

The respondent-State opposed the appeal, submitting that the UAPA provides a comprehensive procedure governing seizure and confiscation of property connected with scheduled offences. It was contended that under Section 25 of the UAPA, the Designated Authority alone is empowered to adjudicate such claims, and the appellate mechanism is prescribed within the statute itself, beginning with the Special Court and culminating in the High Court. It was further argued that the order under challenge was interlocutory in nature, and not appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. The Court examined the rival contentions in light of the statutory provisions of the UAPA and the NIA Act.

The Bench recorded that although the appellants raised a legal point on Section 25 timelines, “the controversy dies down in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Designated Authority.”

It set out the statutory scheme: “Section 25 (1) of the UA(P) Act, inter alia, provides for seizure of any property which represents the proceeds of terrorism with the prior approval in writing of the Director General of Police… [and] Section 25 (3) provides that the Designated Authority… shall either confirm or revoke the order of seizure or attachment… within a period of sixty days.”

The Court further stated: “The proviso… enjoins upon the Designated Authority to afford an opportunity of making representation by the person whose property is being seized or attached.”

The Division Bench observed: “There is a complete mechanism provided under the UA(P) Act itself, right from the seizure… to production before the Designated Authority and, thereafter, the statutory appeal to the Special Court and then to the High Court.”

Addressing maintainability, it held: “The Appellant cannot be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 21 of the NIA Act, so as to circumvent the statutory remedy.” It added: “It is trite law that an Order rejecting the application for release of seized property is interlocutory in nature as it does not finally determine the rights of the parties.”

“It is for the above discussed reasons, we do not deem it proper to go into the question of non-adherence of timeline provided under Section 25 of the UA(P) Act… therefore, the Appellant cannot maintain the appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act.”

Also Read: ‘Dealership’ & ‘Lease’ Agreements Are Independent Contracts | Causes of Action Need Not Be Joined in One Petition: J&K&L High Court

“In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the inbuilt mechanism and hierarchy provided under Section 25 of the UA(P) Act, upto appeal before this Court under Section 28 of the UA(P) Act.”

“Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, along with connected CrlM(s). Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr S. T. Hussain, Senior Advocate; Ms Nida Nazir, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, Senior Additional Advocate General; Ms Nowbahar Khan, Assisting Counsel

Case Title: Yasir Ahmad Bhat & Anr v. UT of J&K 
Case Number: CrlA (D) No. 8/2025
Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma, Justice Shahzad Azeem