The Supreme Court, while dismissing appeals against bail grant and refusal under the UAPA, emphasized the prima facie test for bail under the stringent Act. It declined to interfere with the High Court’s reasoned analysis of the chargesheet evidence, distinguishing the roles of the accused. The Court underscored the right to a speedy trial, directing the conclusion of proceedings within two years due to the accused’s prolonged incarceration.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from an FIR registered in January 2020 against 17 individuals, including Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) and Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20), for alleged conspiracy under the IPC and various offences under the UAPA and Arms Act. The allegations involved connections with terrorist activities and organisations. The investigation was subsequently taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which filed a chargesheet in July 2020. Both accused sought bail from the Special Court, which was denied in December 2020. They then appealed to the Karnataka High Court. In its April 2022 order, the High Court granted bail to Saleem Khan but rejected the bail plea of Mohd. Zaid. This led to two separate appeals before the Supreme Court: one by the Union of India challenging the bail granted to Saleem Khan, and another by Mohd. Zaid challenging the denial of his bail. The core factual distinction, as noted by the courts, was that the evidence against Saleem Khan primarily pertained to his association with ‘AL-Hind’, an organisation not banned under the UAPA, while the evidence against Mohd. Zaid indicated a more serious involvement, including links to banned terrorist organisations and an active role in operating on the dark web to assist them.
Procedural History:
The case commenced with the registration of an FIR in January 2020. Following the arrest of the accused and the filing of a chargesheet by the NIA, both Saleem Khan and Mohd. Zaid had their initial bail applications rejected by the Special Court (NIA) in December 2020. They then filed a joint Criminal Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. In its impugned order dated April 21, 2022, the High Court bifurcated the outcomes, granting bail to Saleem Khan while denying it to Mohd. Zaid. This dual decision led to two separate Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) being filed before the Supreme Court: one by the Union of India challenging the bail granted to Saleem Khan, and the other by Mohd. Zaid challenging the refusal of his bail. The Supreme Court clubbed these petitions, heard them together, and ultimately dismissed both appeals, thereby upholding the High Court’s order.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s detailed reasoning for granting bail to Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) was justified, noting that his alleged association with ‘AL-Hind’—an organisation not banned under the UAPA—did not prima facie constitute an offence. Conversely, the Court found no fault in the denial of bail to Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20), agreeing with the High Court’s assessment of his serious involvement with banned terrorist organisations and activities on the dark web, based on the chargesheet evidence. Crucially, the Court highlighted the significant lapse of 5.5 years of custody without the trial commencing or charges being framed. While upholding the bail decisions, it strongly emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial and directed the Special Court to conclude the trial within two years, warning that the bail of accused No. 11 could be reconsidered if he attempted to delay the proceedings.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, thereby upholding the Karnataka High Court’s impugned order. Consequently, the grant of bail to Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) was maintained, and the denial of bail to Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20) was confirmed. The Court, however, issued a crucial directive to the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within a strict period of two years, noting the prosecution’s list of over 100 witnesses. It mandated full cooperation from both the prosecution and the accused, specifically warning that the bail granted to accused No. 11 would be subject to cancellation if he were found to be deliberately delaying the trial.
Case Details:
Case Title: Union of India vs. Saleem Khan Citation: 2025 INSC 1008 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3644 of 2025 Date of Judgement: August 20, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Download The Judgement Here