Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka High Court’s Bail Grant to Accused | AL-Hind Not a Banned Organisation Under UAPA | Trial Court Directed to Expedite Proceedings
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the Union of India's appeal challenging the grant of bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), holding that “allegations... would not amount to any prima facie offence.” The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s 2022 decision granting bail to Accused No.11 and affirmed the rejection of bail to Accused No.20. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, mandating completion within two years.
The appeal arose from a First Information Report (FIR) registered as Crime No.10 of 2020 by the Suddanguntepalaya Police Station, Bengaluru, based on a tip-off from the Economic Offences Wing, CCB, Bengaluru. The FIR, dated 10 January 2020, named 17 individuals as accused, including the present Respondents, who were assigned numbers 11 and 20 in the case.
The offences cited in the FIR included:
- Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (criminal conspiracy)
- Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959
- Sections 18, 18-A, 18-B, 19, 20, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
On 22 January 2020, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which re-registered it as RC No.4/2020/NIA/DLI. Accused No.11 (Saleem Khan) was arrested on 20 January 2020, while Accused No.20 (Mohd. Zaid) was secured through a body warrant on 9 March 2020. A charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer on 13 July 2020 against these two accused along with others.
Specifically:
- Accused No.11 faced charges under Sections 18, 18A, 20, and 39 of the UAPA, read with Section 120-B IPC.
- Accused No.20 was charged under Sections 18, 20, and 39 of the UAPA, read with Section 120-B IPC.
Both accused filed bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They contended that they were falsely implicated, there was no direct evidence against them, and they had already spent more than a year in custody without any progress in the trial. They further argued that the charge-sheet had been submitted and no further interrogation was necessary. Both asserted that they were from respectable families, had no criminal antecedents, and were sole breadwinners.
The State opposed the bail pleas. The Special Court rejected both applications on 29 December 2020. Challenging this order, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2021 before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court partially allowed the appeal on 21 April 2022—granting bail to Accused No.11 while denying bail to Accused No.20.
Both the Union of India and Accused No.20 filed Special Leave Petitions against this High Court order, resulting in Criminal Appeals Nos. 3644 and 3645 of 2025 before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of its review given that the matter pertained to bail. It stated: “Since the present appeals relate to grant/refusal of prayer of bail, we are not inclined to delve deep into the facts and the reasonings.”
The Court acknowledged the detailed analysis by the High Court, noting: “The reasons given for grant of bail to Saleem Khan, accused no.11 and the reasons given for refusal to grant bail to accused no.20, Mohd. Zaid in our considered opinion is fully justified and reasonable.”
Regarding the grant of bail to Accused No.11, the Bench recorded the High Court’s finding: “The allegations found in the charge-sheet related to his connections with an organisation by the name of AL-Hind, which admittedly is not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA.”
The Court noted that mere association with AL-Hind, absent it being proscribed, did not establish a prima facie offence: “To say that he was attending meetings of the said organisation, AL-Hind and others would not amount to any prima facie offence.”
It also emphasized the prolonged delay in the commencement of the trial, observing: “The impugned order by the High Court was passed on 21.04.2022 almost 3-1/2 years ago... charges have not been framed so far and trial has not commenced even though the accused have been in custody for 5-1/2 years.”
Accordingly, the Court held: “We do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to accused no.11, Saleem Khan.”
Conversely, for Accused No.20, the Supreme Court accepted the High Court’s assessment: “The High Court has found his involvement with banned terrorist organisations, his active role in operating dark web and assisting the members of the banned terrorist organisations.”
The Bench underscored the reliance on investigation records and the charge-sheet in refusing bail: “The reasons given by the High Court are based upon the material collected during investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet.”
Even though Accused No.20 had secured bail in a separate UAPA case from Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court maintained the High Court’s refusal in the current matter. “We, therefore, find that the High Court was justified in not granting bail to accused no.20, Mohd. Zaid.”
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s decision and dismissed both appeals. Notably, it directed the trial court to expedite proceedings:
“It is therefore in the fitness of things that the Trial Court be directed 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.”
It issued corresponding instructions to ensure cooperation by all parties: “The prosecution is also directed to ensure full cooperation in leading the evidence and getting the trial concluded within the time specified above.”
The Bench noted that the liberty granted to the accused on bail was contingent upon cooperation: “It also goes without saying that the accused will also extend full co-operation in the conduct of the trial in particular accused no.11, who has been released on bail.”
In the event of any obstruction or delay, the Court granted the liberty to revoke bail: “The Trial Court or the prosecuting agency would be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail of accused no.11, in case it is found that he is trying to delay the trial.”
Case Title: Union of India v. Saleem Khan & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1008
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3644–3645 of 2025 (arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11583/2022 & 1353/2025)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
