 Act (UAPA).webp)
The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal against a Special Court's order confirming attachment of property under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is maintainable before the High Court under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja rejected the National Investigation Agency's preliminary objection that such an appeal would amount to a second appeal against the attachment order.
Background
The case arose from an order passed by the Designated Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, on June 10, 2023, confirming the attachment of the fourth and fifth floors of a property at Survey No. 5, Ashraf Nagar, Pune. The attachment proceedings were initiated under Section 25 of the UAPA.
A Special Judge subsequently dismissed the appeal filed under Section 25(6) of the UAPA and upheld the attachment order. Aggrieved by that decision, Aquil Ahmed approached the Delhi High Court under Section 28 of the UAPA read with Section 21 of the NIA Act.
The NIA challenged the maintainability of the appeal. It argued that Section 25(6) provides a specific appellate remedy before the Special Court and that Section 28 separately provides an appeal to the High Court against an order of forfeiture under Section 26. According to the NIA, allowing another appeal against the attachment order would effectively create a second appeal.
The High Court examined the distinction between attachment and forfeiture under the UAPA. It noted that Section 25 deals with seizure or attachment, while forfeiture under Section 26 is a subsequent stage.
The Bench pointed out that an attachment does not automatically result in forfeiture. Before forfeiture can be ordered, Section 27 requires a separate show-cause notice and an opportunity for the concerned person to make a representation and be heard.
"The scheme of the UAPA itself shows that there are two different distinct stages; one of attachment of the property under Section 25 of the said Act and the other of forfeiture of the property under Section 26 of the said Act."
The Court further observed that the order passed under Section 25(6) finally determines the issue of seizure or attachment and therefore cannot be treated as an interlocutory order. Section 21 of the NIA Act permits an appeal to the High Court against a judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court, except an interlocutory order.
The Bench held that the appeal filed by Aquil Ahmed was maintainable and rejected the NIA's preliminary objection.
The Court clarified that the appeal concerning attachment under Section 25(6) and the appeal against a subsequent forfeiture order under Section 28 of the UAPA concern distinct stages of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the present appeal was maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act and directed that the matter be listed for final hearing on December 2, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Aquil Ahmed v. National Investigation Agency Through the Chief Investigating Officer
Case Number: CRL.A. 1011/2024
Judge: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Decision Date: September 15, 2026
