Srinagar: In a significant development, the office of the separatist group All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) located at Srinagar’s Rajbagh area is going to be attached soon by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The NIA has claimed in the NIA court in New Delhi that "there is sufficient evidence against Hurriyat leader Naeem Khan and he partly owns the property."
The court was hearing the case NIA vs Mohammad Hafiz Saeed and others registered under the UAPA. The agency has also invoked the provisions of Section 33 (1) of UAPA to seek attachment of the property. The case has been registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code 120B, 121, 121A, and several sections of the UAPA, including 18, 20, 38, 39, and 40, against Hafiz, a Pakistan-based militant, members of the APHC, proscribed militant organizations like Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), and others for “funding of separatist and terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir”.
Also read: Tricolour affixed on Hurriyat office in Srinagar
The order, issued by Shailender Malik, Additional Session Judge New Delhi, read that Khan, who was arrested on July 24, 2017, is alleged to have raised, received, and collected funds “domestically as well as abroad through various channels including Hawala for funding separatist and terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir”.
Citing several judgments, the court observed that section 24 expands the expression of the “proceeds of terrorism” and makes it clear that such expression shall also include “any property intended to be used for terrorism”. The court also noted: “the APHC was the place where meetings were held to strategize different protests, funding activities of stone pelting on security forces, recruiting unemployed youths to carry out unlawfül activities as well as terrorist activities to create an unrest in the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir to wage war against the Government of India.”
The court further noted that the attachment doesn’t mean to be a “pre-trial conclusion” but “only include binding of a property which can be forfeited to the State”.
