Back
No Possession, No Claim: J&K&L High Court Rejects Vehicle Release to 'Owner' in Terror Arms Case
In a pointed ruling on seized assets linked to terrorism, the dismissed an appeal by Rubeena Begum, the registered owner of a Tata Nexon car allegedly used to ferry illegal weapons. A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that parting with possession via a to an accused overground worker strips the erstwhile owner of any legal standing to reclaim the vehicle. The decision underscores strict scrutiny in terror-related seizures under the .
From Anti-Militancy Raid to Courtroom Showdown
The saga began on , when police from Post Awoora, under Trehgam station in Kupwara, nabbed Fareed Ahmed Chouhan, labeled an overground worker (OGW) for militants. A personal search yielded a Chinese pistol, magazine, five rounds, and a Vivo mobile, triggering FIR No. 04/2022 under and .
Probes deepened: The next day, , raids at Chouhan's home uncovered a haul of country-made pistols, magazines, ammunition, a Japanese compass, a bayonet, a cell charger, and foreign currency from the US, China, Kuwait, UAE, Afghanistan, and elsewhere—proceeds suspected from terror funding.
Further, the Tata Nexon (JK09C-1586), bought from "unknown sources," was seized as the accused's tool for transporting arms. Rubeena Begum, claiming registered ownership financed via , had allegedly executed a on , handing possession to Chouhan for Rs. 12.10 lakh (Rs. 6.30 lakh paid). With Chouhan jailed, she sought release from the , which rebuffed her for lacking possession. Her appeal under Section 21 of the Act followed, filed as CrlA (D) No. 42/2024, decided .
Owner's Plea vs Prosecution's Pushback
Begum argued she remained the registered owner, entitled to custody since Chouhan was incarcerated and no contraband was found in the vehicle—merely used for transport. She denied militancy links, claimed ongoing loan repayments stalled by the arrest, and positioned herself as an innocent financier reclaiming her asset.
Respondents, represented by the Union Territory through Trehgam SHO and Awoora Post In-Charge, countered fiercely: The vehicle was procured from terror proceeds, integral to Chouhan's arms runs as a terrorist group member and fundraiser. Begum had voluntarily transferred possession and partial payment, forfeiting locus. They flagged her as a proxy ploy by the accused, urging denial to safeguard prosecution.
Seal the Fate
Delving into the record, the Bench zeroed in on inconsistencies. Begum's appeal memo admitted handing possession post-PoA, yet she dodged court orders on
and
, to produce the original document—claiming it was already filed when it wasn't. This
"
"
(suppression of truth, suggestion of falsehood) smacked of abuse.
The Court clarified: Mere registration doesn't suffice post-transfer; she can't deny constructive possession while seeking custody. Trial Court rightly saw it as the accused's scheme via the ex-owner, prejudicing the case. No precedents were cited, but the ruling invokes bedrock principles of and —courts shun those with "."
A cautionary note rang out: Despite allegations of terror proceeds, no confiscation proceedings launched. A copy went to SSP Kupwara for action.
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment pulls no punches with these gems:
"From the above noted facts, it is conspicuous that the Appellant has approached the Court with , rather she has made misrepresentation and also taken contradictory and prevaricated stand, that defeats her claim to the custody of the vehicle in question."(Para 14)
"The Appellant has no locus to maintain the Appeal. Therefore, on this count also, the appeal is not maintainable."(Para 15)
"The Trial Court has rightly concluded... as being misconceived and a ploy invented by the accused to get the vehicle in question released with the assistance of the registered owner of the vehicle, thereby causing prejudice to the Prosecution."(Para 16)
"The appeal also suffers from and, therefore, the Appellant has grossly abused the process of the Court."(Para 18)
Dismissed: Broader Ripples for Terror Asset Claims
The appeal, including connected miscellaneous applications, stands dismissed as "misconceived." Begum walks away empty-handed, reinforcing that terror-linked assets demand ironclad claims—registration alone won't cut it post-transfer.
This sets a precedent: In UAPA/ probes, ex-owners risk denial for dodgy dealings or proxies. As LiveLaw noted in coverage, it spotlights investigative lapses like pending confiscations, potentially spurring faster action under UAPA Chapter V. For owners entangled with suspects, transparency is key—or face courtroom rejection.
