Attending ‘Jihadi’ Meetings Not Enough for UAPA Case: Supreme Court Upholds Bail

"The impugned order passed by the Karnataka High Court has dealt with all the aspects in great detail. The reasons given for grant of bail to Saleem Khan, and the reasons given for refusal to grant bail to accused Mohd Zaid in our considered opinion is fully justified and reasonable,'' the bench said.

The court noted while dealing with the prayer for bail of Saleem Khan, the High Court noticed that 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. Therefore, to say that he was attending meetings of the said organisation, AL-Hind and others would not amount to any prima facie offence.

''We also noticed that the impugned order by the High Court was passed on 21.04.2022 almost 3-1/2 years ago and as such, it may not be just and proper to interfere with the same at this stage. Further, it is admitted position at the bar that the 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,'' the bench said.

With regard to Mohd Zaid, court noted, the High Court had found his involvement with banned terrorist organisations, his active role in operating dark web, and assisting the members of the banned terrorist organisations.

"The reasons given by the High Court are based upon the material collected during investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet. The High Court further noticed the involvement of accused no.20 in another case under UAPA. Although, we may record here that in the said case arising from State of Tamil Nadu, accused no.20 has been granted bail by the Madras High Court. We, therefore, find that the High Court was justified in not granting bail to accused no.20, Mohd. Zaid,'' the bench said.

In its judgment dismissing the criminal appeals filed by the Union government and Mohd Zaid, the apex court, however, 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.

"The fact remains that the trial has not commenced despite lapse of 5-1/2 years. Accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial,'' the bench said.

Court also directed the prosecution and the accused to extend full cooperation in the conduct of trial.

''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,'' the bench clarified.

The First Information Report was registered by Suddanguntepalaya Police Station against 17 named accused on January 10, 2020, under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 18602 , 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and Sections 18, 18-A, 18-B, 19, 20, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

Subsequently, the matter was referred to the National Investigating Agency on Janaury 22, 2020. NIA accordingly re-registered the case.

Accused no.11, Saleem Khan was arrested on Janaury 20, 2020 whereas accused no.20 Zaid Khan was secured under body warrant on March 09, 2020. The Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet on July 13, 2020 against accused nos.11, 20 and others.

Case Title: Union of India Vs Saleem Khan

Order Date: August 20, 2025

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Vishwanathan