The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed an appeal filed by two men seeking release of a seized load carrier. The vehicle, according to investigators, had been used for transporting arms and ammunition in connection with alleged terror-related activities. The bench, comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma, reserved its order on September 8 and pronounced it on September 19, 2025.
Background
The case traces back to November 27, 2023, when police from Srigufwara, along with the Army's 3rd RR camp at Sirhama, set up a surprise checkpoint at Mehand, Satkipora Crossing. Two men, later identified as Yasir Ahmad Bhat of Jablipora and Mehraj-ud-Din Dar of Sirhama, were intercepted.
From their possession, police claim to have recovered 90 live rounds of an AK-47 rifle and a live hand grenade. Investigators allege that both men were linked to The Resistance Front (TRF), a shadow outfit of Lashkar-e-Taiba, and were actively involved in radicalising youth.
During the probe, police also seized a load carrier (registration number JK03L/4982), asserting that it was used in transporting arms. The seizure was placed before the Designated Authority under Section 25 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The accused had filed an application before the Special Court at Anantnag, claiming the vehicle was the sole livelihood of the family, purchased on loan, and never used for terror activity. The court dismissed the plea, saying the matter was still pending with the Designated Authority. The two then moved the High Court under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008.
Court's Observations
The appellants argued through senior advocate S.T. Hussain that mandatory safeguards under Section 25 of the UAPA had not been followed, making the seizure illegal. They emphasised that procedural timelines and prior approvals were ignored.
The government, represented by Senior AAG Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, countered that all procedures had been followed and that the Director General of Police had approved the seizure on June 5, 2024. The State argued the High Court had no reason to interfere since the Designated Authority was already seized of the matter.
Justice Azeem, writing for the bench, pointed out that the UAPA provides a step-by-step mechanism: seizure by investigators, confirmation or revocation by the Designated Authority, and further statutory appeals.
The court remarked,
"The appellant seems to have jumped the gun and, instead of responding to the notice issued by the Designated Authority, rushed with an application before the Special Court. Such action is neither tenable nor permissible."
The judges also noted that the impugned order was "interlocutory" in nature and hence not appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. They warned that if courts bypassed the Designated Authority, it would amount to "usurping the jurisdiction and powers" specifically vested in that forum.
Decision
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, observing that the appellants had an effective remedy before the Designated Authority and later, if required, before the Special Court and then the High Court under Section 28 of the UAPA.
The bench categorically held,
"We are of the opinion that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the inbuilt mechanism and hierarchy provided under Section 25 of the UAPA."
With that, the appeal stood dismissed, and any interim relief granted earlier was vacated.
The final word was clear: the appellants must exhaust remedies under the UAPA before approaching higher courts.
Case Title: Yasir Ahmad Bhat & Anr. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Case No.: CrlA (D) No. 8/2025