APHC’s Rajbagh office attached officially

SRINAGAR — Sleuths of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Sunday reached Rajbagh Srinagar to execute the orders to attach the office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC).

A notice has also been pasted outside the premises which read, “This is to inform all members of the public that the building where the office of All Party Hurriyat Conference is located at Rajbagh, which is owned jointly by Sh. Nayeem Ahmed Khan, who is presently facing trial in case RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI in the NIA Court Delhi, has been attached by the Court order dated 27th January 2023 by the Special NIA Court, Patiala House, New Delhi.”

The sleuths, however, didn’t respond much to the media and said that they are just following the court orders.

It is pertinent to mention here that Shaliender Malik, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, ordered for attachment of the immovable property/building office of All Parties Hurriyat Conference on January 27.

The Court maintained that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act-1967 does not in any manner hinder the powers of the court to attach any such property of which the accused is facing trial under the UAPA of which he may be partly-owner, adding that the attachment in itself does not mean that there is any pre-trial conclusion regarding that property.

It further said that among the different allegations and evidence, it was also the case that the office of APHC was the place where meetings were held to strategize different protests, funding activities of stone pelting on security forces, recruiting of unemployed youths to carry out unlawful activities as well as [militant] activities to create unrest in the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir to wage war against the Government of India.

“In such a situation, taking into consideration the serious nature of the allegations as against A-5 itself, the fact that he is part owner of the property in question, cannot be a reason for not attaching the property when it is not even made clear as to who others were co-owners of that property,” the court said.