The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order dated 04 April 2024 passed by the Special Court (Kupwara) whereby an application seeking release of a Tata Nexon vehicle (JK09C-1586) seized in FIR No. 04/2022 under Sections 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 13, 20 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was rejected. A division bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that the appellant, Rubeena Begum, who claimed to be the registered owner, had no locus standi to maintain the application or the appeal after she had executed a Power of Attorney dated 08 July 2021 in favour of the accused Over Ground Worker (OGW) Fareed Ahmed Chouhan and parted with possession of the vehicle for a sale consideration of Rs. 12,10,000/-, out of which Rs. 6,30,000/- had already been received by her.

The prosecution case was that on 22 January 2022, Fareed Ahmed Chouhan was apprehended in an anti-militancy operation at Police Post Awoora, Zurhama, and a Chinese pistol, magazine, five rounds and a mobile phone were recovered from him. During investigation, huge quantities of arms, ammunition, bayonets, compass and foreign currency notes of various countries were seized from his residence. Further probe revealed that the accused had purchased the Tata Nexon vehicle from unknown sources and was using it for transportation of illegal weapons, leading to its seizure. The appellant moved the trial court claiming to be the registered owner and seeking release of the vehicle on the ground that the accused (her attorney holder) was in custody and she continued to pay the loan instalments through J&K Grameen Bank. The trial court dismissed the application holding that she had transferred possession to the accused and therefore had no locus to reclaim custody.

The High Court observed that the appellant had approached the court with unclean hands. In the memo of appeal she specifically admitted executing the Power of Attorney and handing over possession to the accused, yet claimed entitlement as registered owner. She also took a contradictory stand by stating that instalments were still being paid by her while simultaneously asserting that the accused’s arrest had prevented payment. The court had twice directed her to produce the original Power of Attorney, but she failed to do so, and the respondents’ compliance report confirmed her refusal. The bench held that such misrepresentation, suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood (suppressio veri and suggestio falsi) amounted to gross abuse of the process of law, defeating any claim to custody of the vehicle. The court further noted that the vehicle was allegedly involved in transportation of arms and ammunition and the prosecution case was that it was procured out of proceeds of militancy-related activities, yet no confiscation proceedings under Chapter V of the UAPA had been initiated till date. A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the SSP, Kupwara, for information and compliance in this regard.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed as misconceived, along with connected applications.

Case Title: Rubeena Begum v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
Case No.: CriA (D) No. 42/2024
Date of Judgment: 23 March 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sindhu Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem

Click HERE For full Judgment