Appeal U/S 21 NIA Act Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Order When Statutory Remedy U/S 25 UAPA Is Available: J&K And Ladakh High Court - 2025-09-19

J&K High Court Dismisses Appeal for Vehicle Release, Upholds UAPA's Statutory Remedy Hierarchy

Srinagar, J&K – The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant ruling, has held that an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, is not maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Special Court, especially when a specific statutory remedy is available under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

A division bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal filed by Yasir Ahmad Bhat challenging the Special Court's refusal to release his vehicle, which was seized in connection with a terror-related case. The Court emphasized that the appellant must exhaust the remedies provided within the UAPA's framework before approaching the High Court under the NIA Act.

Background of the Case

The case originates from the arrest of Yasir Ahmad Bhat and Mehraj-ud-Din Dar on November 27, 2023, during a police checkpoint operation in Srigufwara. The authorities recovered 90 live rounds of an AK-47 and one live hand grenade from the accused, who were alleged to have connections with the banned terrorist outfit Lashker-e-Toiba (TRF).

Subsequently, a case (FIR No. 83/2023) was registered under the Indian Arms Act and Sections 13, 16, and 18-B of the UAPA. During the investigation, a load carrier vehicle (Reg. No. JK03L/4982) belonging to Bhat was seized on the grounds of being used in terrorist activities.

Bhat filed an application before the Special Judge (UAPA), Anantnag, for the release of his vehicle. The Special Court dismissed the application on January 25, 2025, noting that the matter of the vehicle's seizure was pending before the "Designated Authority" under Section 25 of the UAPA. Aggrieved by this dismissal, Bhat filed the present appeal before the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

For the Appellant (Yasir Ahmad Bhat):

Senior Counsel Mr. S. T. Hussain argued that the seized vehicle was the family's only source of income and was at risk of irreparable damage if it remained at the police station. He vehemently contended that the seizure was illegal as the procedural timelines and requirements under Section 25 of the UAPA were not followed, which vitiated the entire process.

For the Respondent (Union Territory of J&K):

Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, countered that the vehicle was used for transporting arms and ammunition for terrorist activities. He submitted that all legal formalities under Section 25 of the UAPA were observed, including obtaining approval from the Director General of Police. He argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the order of the Special Court was interlocutory and the UAPA provided a complete statutory mechanism for redressal, which the appellant was attempting to circumvent.

Court's Analysis and Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the procedural framework laid out in Section 25 of the UAPA. The bench noted that the Act provides a clear, hierarchical mechanism for challenging the seizure of property:

• Seizure & Information: An investigating officer, with prior approval from the DGP, can seize property believed to be proceeds of terrorism. This seizure must be reported to the Designated Authority within 48 hours.
• Confirmation by Designated Authority: The Designated Authority must either confirm or revoke the seizure order within 60 days, after giving the property owner an opportunity to be heard.
• Appeal to Special Court: An order by the Designated Authority can be appealed to the Special Court under Section 25(6).
• Appeal to High Court: Finally, an order of forfeiture by the court can be appealed to the High Court under Section 28.

The Court observed that the Designated Authority (Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir) was already handling the matter and had issued a notice to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the appellant's premature action:

"The Appellant seems to have jumped the gun and, instead of responding to the notice issued by the Designated Authority, filed an application for release of vehicle, which action... is neither tenable from reading of Section 25 of the UA(P) Act nor is permissible..."

Furthermore, the Court held the appeal to be independently barred under Section 21 of the NIA Act, which permits appeals only against final judgments and orders, not interlocutory ones. The bench stated:

"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... having regard to the bar created under Section 21 of the NIA Act, the present appeal, yet for this reason, is also not maintainable."

Final Decision and Its Implications

Concluding that the appellant had bypassed the statutory remedies available under the UAPA, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment clarifies that parties in UAPA cases must adhere to the specific procedural hierarchy for challenging seizures and cannot directly invoke the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under the NIA Act to sidestep this process.

The decision reinforces the legislative intent behind the UAPA's procedural safeguards, ensuring that matters of seizure are first adjudicated by the Designated Authority, which has the necessary powers to conduct a full inquiry.