The Supreme Court upheld a Karnataka High Court order which had granted bail to one of the accused, Saleem Khan, while refusing bail to another accused, Mohd. Zaid, in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court observed that while liberty granted to Khan did not merit interference after three-and-a-half years, Zaid’s alleged nexus with banned organisations justified denial of bail. However, the Court underscored that “accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial".
The case originated from an FIR registered in January 2020 by Bengaluru Police based on intelligence inputs regarding suspected terror-related activities. The case was later handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) which re-registered it under provisions of the IPC, Arms Act, and multiple sections of the UAPA. Saleem Khan, arrayed as Accused No.11, was arrested soon after, while Mohd. Zaid, arrayed as Accused No.20, was secured through a body warrant. Both were charge-sheeted for conspiracy, links with organisations, and aiding unlawful activities. While both applied for bail, their pleas were initially rejected by the trial court. The Karnataka High Court, in April 2022, partly allowed their appeals, granting bail to Khan but rejecting Zaid’s plea.
Counsel for the accused had argued that both Khan and Zaid were falsely implicated, that there was no substantive evidence linking them to terrorist activities, and that they had already remained in custody for several years without the trial making progress. It was urged that since the charge-sheet had been filed, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. On the other hand, the prosecution opposed bail, stressing the gravity of allegations and Zaid’s alleged links with proscribed groups and involvement in darknet operations.
The Apex Court, while exercising caution in a bail matter, declined to reopen the merits of the High Court’s findings. With respect to Saleem Khan, the Bench noted that the charge-sheet only attributed links with an organisation named Al-Hind, which was not a banned body under the UAPA. The Court remarked that mere attendance at such meetings would not, prima facie, amount to an offence. Further, the Court observed that since bail had already been operating for nearly three and a half years and the trial had not commenced, it would not be “just and proper to interfere” with the High Court’s order.
On the other hand, while considering Mohd. Zaid’s plea, the Court pointed to the High Court’s findings regarding his “involvement with banned terrorist organisations, his active role in operating dark web and assisting members of such organisations". It was also noted that Zaid faced another UAPA case in Tamil Nadu, though bail had been granted there. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s refusal of bail in the present matter.
Significantly, the Bench voiced concern over the prolonged incarceration without trial, observing, “Accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial.”
Both appeals, one by the Union of India against grant of bail to Khan, and the other by Zaid against denial of bail, were dismissed. However, the Apex Court issued a strong direction to the trial court to conclude proceedings within two years, given that more than 100 witnesses remain to be examined. The prosecution was directed to cooperate fully, while the Court made it clear that if Khan, who is presently on bail, attempted to delay proceedings, his bail could be cancelled.
Case Title: Union of India vs. Saleem Khan
Case No.: SLP(Crl.)No.11583/2022
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice k.v. Viswanathan
Picture Source :
