A day after Delhi Court ordered the attachment of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) office at Rajbagh, the team of National Investigation Agency (NIA), Sunday attached the Hurriyat office.
As per ANI, a team of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has arrived at Rajbagh in Srinagar to attach the office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in a UAPA case.
Earlier on Saturday, Delhi Court has ordered to attach the office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in Srinagar in a UAPA case probed by National Investigation Agency (NIA) against separatist leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan.
“In view of the above reasons, the immovable property i.e. building office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference 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 said. Patiala House Courts’ Additional Sessions Judge Shailender Malik passed the order on NIA’s plea under section 33(1) of UAPA to attach the office.”
National Investigation Agency (NIA) has moved an application seeking the passing of immovable property i.e. building office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference situated at Raj Bagh, Srinagar. It is stated in the
application that the mentioned property has been sought to be attached which is partly owned by accused Nayem Ahmad Khan along with his associates.
In the application, NIA said that there is sufficient evidence in the form of documentary, electronic and oral to substantiate the charges framed against the accused Khan and prayed that the said building which was being used by members of APHC for unlawful activities and accused Khan is a co-owner of that property and he is facing the prosecution.
The court, in its order, clarified that the attachment does not mean that there is any pre-trial conclusion regarding that property. The process of attachment only includes the binding of a property which can be forfeited to the state.
“In that process, it is needless to observe that in case any other person who claims to be a co-owner and considers that such a process of attachment is not proper, can avail legal right in accordance with the law,” the court said.
The court noted that Section 33 of the Act at least does not in any manner hinder the powers of the court to attach any such property of which the accused is facing trial under Chapters IV and VI of the Act of which he may be partly owner. As noted above provisions of Section 33 of the Act should be constructed in a manner that should give full effect to objects of the Act.
Accused Nayeem Ahmad Khan was arrested during the investigation of this case on July 24 2017.
The court observed that charges have been framed against the accused in the matter.
The court also observed that among the different allegations and evidence, it was also the case that the office of APlIC was the place where meetings were held to strategize different protests, funding activities of stone pelting on security forces, recruiting unemployed youths to carry out unlawful activities as well as terrorist activities to create unrest in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir to wage war against the Government of India.
“In such a situation taking into consideration the serious nature of the allegations as against A-5 itself, 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.
