Ploy Invented By Accused To Get Vehicle Released: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Dismisses Plea For Release Of Car Seized For Alleged Terrorist Activity

The Court observed that the Appellant, despite being the registered owner, had no locus standi to maintain the appeal as she had already sold the vehicle and handed over its possession to an accused "Over Ground Worker" via a Power of Attorney.

It was held that the appeal was a calculated ploy to assist the accused in reclaiming a vehicle allegedly used for transporting illegal weapons, and thereby causing prejudice to the prosecution.

The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem observed, “There is also a third dimension to the matter on hand that the Appellant, though is staking claim to the entitlement of the vehicle in question, but, at the same time, she is even denying its constructive possession when the vehicle was allegedly found involved in the transportation of arms and ammunition. In this regard, the Trial Court has rightly concluded, while dismissing the application, 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.”

Advocate TA Lone appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Maha Majeed appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

An appeal under Section 21 of the of the National Investigation Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”) was filed against the Order passed by the Special Court (Kupwara), whereby the application seeking release of vehicle in FIR under Section 7/25 Indian Arms Act (IA Act) and 13, 20 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA Act”) came to be dismissed.

The case arose from an anti-militancy operation conducted on January 22, 2022, during which an "Over Ground Worker" (OGW) named Fareed Ahmed Chouhan was apprehended. During the investigation, the police seized a Tata Nexon vehicle on the grounds that it was purchased from the proceeds of militancy and was used for transporting illegal weapons.

The appellant, claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle, moved an application before the Trial Court for its release. It was admitted that she had executed a Power of Attorney in favor of the accused and handed over possession of the vehicle to him for a sale consideration of Rs. 12,10,000/-.

The Trial Court dismissed her application, ruling that since she had parted with the possession and interest in the vehicle, she had no standing to reclaim it. Consequently, she challenged the order before the High Court.

Contention of Parties

The Appellant contended that she was the registered owner of the vehicle and was still paying the bank installments for the car loan. She argued that the vehicle was not involved in any militancy-related activities and that nothing objectionable was recovered from it. She further claimed that since the person holding her Power of Attorney (the accused) was in jail, she, as the legal owner, had the right to seek custody of the vehicle.

The Respondents (Prosecution) strongly opposed the appeal. They contended that the vehicle was purchased using the proceeds of terrorism and was actively used for the transportation of arms and ammunition. They argued that the appellant had no right to claim the vehicle because she had already sold her interest in it and handed over its physical possession to the accused.

Observations

The High Court observed that the appellant approached the court with "unclean hands" and made several misrepresentations. The Court noted that despite being given multiple opportunities, the appellant failed to produce the original Power of Attorney documents. It was further observed that the appellant took contradictory stands by claiming ownership while simultaneously admitting she had sold the vehicle and received a significant portion of the sale price.

The Court held that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain the appeal because the vehicle was neither seized from her possession nor was she the owner in a strict legal sense after executing the Power of Attorney. The Court agreed with the Trial Court that the application was a "ploy" by the accused to get the vehicle released through the registered owner.

The Court observed, “There is another aspect of the matter that cannot be lost sight of that as per the stand taken by the Appellant, she had parted with the possession of the vehicle and also accepted the sale consideration of the vehicle in question, therefore, cannot reclaim the possession of the vehicle under the garb of Court orders, when neither the vehicle is seized from her possession nor she is the owner of the vehicle in the strict legal sense after executing the Power of Attorney in favour of the accused. In this view of the matter, the Appellant has no locus to maintain the Appeal. Therefore, on this count also, the appeal is not maintainable.”

Additionally, the High Court criticized the investigating agency for failing to promptly initiate formal confiscation proceedings under the UAPA, despite claiming the vehicle was "proceeds of terrorism".

It observed, "At this stage, we deem it proper to sound a note of caution that from the Status Report dated December 12, 2025, it is seen that till date no confiscation proceedings have been initiated in respect of the vehicle in question, though the Prosecution case is that the vehicle is being purchased and procured out of the proceeds of militancy related activities, in that, the accused was allegedly found involved in unlawful activities, being member of a terrorist organization, and also found to have been raising funds for terrorist organization, therefore, the Investigating Agency was enjoined upon to promptly proceed in terms of Chapter V of the UAPA Act, but nothing of the sort is forthcoming."

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Rubeena Begum v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. [CrlA (D) No. 42/2024]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate TA Lone

Respondents: Advocate Maha Majeed

Click here to read/download the Judgment