Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Jan 5: Special Judge under NIA Act, Jammu, Prem Sagar has allowed the National Investigation Agency’s application and ordered attachment of an immovable property—land measuring 03 Kanals and 04 Marlas linked to accused Tanveer Ahmad Wani of Pulwama under Section 33(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The court ordered that no third-party interest shall be created in the attached property till the culmination of the trial and forwarded the order to the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Pulwama for compliance.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
The NIA, represented by Special Public Prosecutor K S Pathania, submitted that the case originated from January 11, 2020, when a Hyundai i20 (JK-03H-1738) was intercepted at Al-Stop Naka on the Srinagar-Jammu Highway near Mir Bazar Police Post, Kulgam, and arms and ammunition including an AK-47 rifle, three pistols and a hand grenade were allegedly recovered.
Following the seizure, FIR No. 05/2020 was registered at Police Station Qazigund, Kulgam. The probe was later taken over by the NIA and re-registered as RC-01/2020/NIA/JMU dated 17.01.2020 under provisions of the UAPA, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act.
The agency has alleged that Tanveer Ahmad Wani stated to be an ex-President of LoC Traders Association had links with Hizb leadership in Pakistan and allegedly entered into a conspiracy with co-accused to sustain and further activities of the banned outfit by raising, receiving and transferring funds to militants through an OGW network in J&K.
Opposing the plea, the accused, through counsel Advocate I H Bhat, argued that the land was ancestral/inherited property and not “proceeds of terrorism,” also pointing out that the property was mortgaged with J&K Bank against a cash credit facility, questioning the maintainability of the attachment request.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that Section 33(1) UAPA permits attachment of an accused person’s property during trial as a preventive measure to ensure that the accused does not dispose of the property or create third-party interests that may frustrate forfeiture in the event of conviction. Holding that the possibility of disposal prior to conclusion of trial could not be ruled out, the Court ordered attachment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
