Supreme Court: While considering this matter where the Union of India challenged Karnataka High Court’s verdict in partly allowing a criminal appeal thereby granting bail to the Respondent and denying bail to another accused for offences under Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Arms Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA); the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., upheld the High Court’s decision.
On the question of grant of bail to the Respondent, the Court took note that the High Court had observed that Respondent was attending meetings of an organisation named AL-Hind, which was not a banned organisation under the UAPA. Therefore, to say that the Respondent was attending meetings of the said organisation, AL-Hind and others would not amount to any prima facie offence.
On the information given by an Inspector of Police attached to the Economic Offence Wing, CCB, Bangalore, an FIR was filed under Section 120-B IPC, 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and Sections 18, 18-A, 18-B, 19, 20, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
The Respondent was arrayed as Accused 11, whereas other accused was arrayed as Accused 20. Later on, the matter was referred to the National Investigating Agency. The charges alleged against the Accused 11 were for offences punishable under Sections 18/18A/20 and 39 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B of the IPC. Whereas Accused 20, the chargesheet related to offences punishable under Section 18/20/39 of UAPA and Section 120-B of IPC.
Accused 11 and 20 applied for being released on bail before the Trial Court and the State objected to the same. The Trial Court after considering the material on record rejected the applications for grant of bail. Aggrieved, the Accused persons approached the High Court, wherein the appeals were partly allowed and Accused 11 was granted bail and Accused 20’s prayer for bail was rejected.
Aggrieved with the High Court’s verdict, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court challenging grant of bail to Accused 11. Meanwhile Accused 20 approached the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of bail.
Perusing the matter, the Court noted that the present appeals relate to grant/refusal of prayer of bail, therefore, the Court was not inclined to delve deep into the facts and the reasonings. The Court observed that the impugned order passed by Karnataka High Court had dealt with all the aspects in great detail.
On the question of grant of bail to Accused 11, the Court took note of High Court’s reasonings on the Accused’s alleged connections with an organisation by the name of AL Hind. It was noted that the High Court found AL-Hind as not a banned organisation under the schedule to the UAPA, hence there was no prima-facie offence thereby granting bail to Accused 11. It had been further noted that charges had not been framed and trial had not commenced even though the accused has been in custody for 5 ½ years. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court’s order vis-a-vis Accused 11.
Qua Accused 20, the High Court had found that he was involved with banned terrorist organisations, his active role in operating dark web and assisting the members of the banned terrorist organisations. Henceforth, his prayer for bail was rejected after the High Court had analysed the material collected during investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet. Therefore, the Supreme Court again did not find any reason to interfere with this order.
The Court pointed out that trial in this matter has not commenced despite passage of 5 ½ years. Therefore, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of two years considering that there are more than 100 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution.
Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed both the appeals.
[Union of India v. Saleem Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1754, decided on 20-8-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. I Abdul Basith, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Tushar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
