HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No. 161/2021

CrlM No. 537/2021

Reserved on: 01.06.2021

Pronounced on: 14.06.2021

Sheikh Mohammad Aslam & Anr.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr Shuaj Ul Haq, Advocate.

vs

UT of JK th. Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr Mohsin Qadri, Senior Advocate with

Ms Jasia Ali, Advocate.

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

(JUDGMENT)

01.

In the instant petition, the petitioners challenge to order of the learned

Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, dated 14^th of May, 2021,

passed in the application titled Sheikh Mohammad Aslam & Anr vs UT of

J&K through Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Srinagar, Kashmir, and

seek its quashment with further direction to release the amount of Rs. 9.00

lakhs in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners seek release of the seized

amount as also quashment of order impugned dated 14^th of May, 2021, on the

grounds detailed out as under:

a.

That the order impugned dated 14-5-2021 is bad in law and has

been passed by the Ld. court of Special Judge (Anti-

Corruption) Srinagar in a most casual and mechanical manner.

It is submitted that while passing the order impugned, the Ld.

court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Srinagar has not

correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances attendant to

Page 2 of 19

CRM(M) No. 161/2021

CrlM No. 537/2021

the case of the petitioners vis-à-vis the release of cash amount

of Rs. 9.00 lakhs which was taken out from the possession of

the petitioners and seized by the respondent during the search.

It is submitted that in the order impugned dated 14-5-2021, the

main ground for rejection of the prayer of the petitioners for

seeking release of the cash amount has been based on the fact

that the investigation of the case was at its initial stage and the

release of the money at this stage would defeat very purport of

the investigation. Besides, it has also been stated by the Ld.

court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Srinagar that the

release of the money at this stage would hamper the

investigation of the case. The application has been held to be

premature as such came to be rejected by the Ld. court of

Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Srinagar. It is submitted that

grounds taken by the Ld. court of Special Judge (Anti-

Corruption) Srinagar for rejecting the application filed by the

petitioners are unreasonable, unjust and unfounded as the Ld.

court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Srinagar has failed

to return any finding with reference to the seizure of the money

which was taken out from the possession of the petitioner No.

2. On one hand, the Ld. Trial court has stated that petitioner No.

1 has not been arrayed as accused in the FIR while as on the

other hand, it has been stated that the name of the petitioner is

also reflected in the case diary as an accused. Besides, the trial

court has also stated that the petitioners are none other than the

parents of the 8accused public servant9 who was accused in the

misappropriated money related to the case. In this regard, it is

submitted that the son of the petitioners is not a public servant

as is clearly reflected in the police report as well as objections

filed by the respondent. However, the Ld. Trial court has

wrongly held that the son of the petitioner (accused) was a

public servant. On this count alone, the order impugned is bad

in law as such deserves to be quashed at the very outset.

b.

That the Ld. Court below has also failed to appreciate the

averments made in the report filed by the respondent. It is

submitted that from the bare perusal of the report which had

been filed by the respondent police before the court below, it

transpired that FIR No. 18/2021 pertains to execution of the

Page 3 of 19

CRM(M) No. 161/2021

CrlM No. 537/2021

works by JKPCC in the yea