UNION OF INDIAversusSALEEM KHAN

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2050 : 2025 INSC 1008

                               Union of India
                                    v.
                               Saleem Khan
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3644 of 2025)
                                20 August 2025
             [Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to accused
       no.11 and rejecting the same of accused no.20.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 –
       120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25(1B)(a) – Unlawful Activities
       Prevention Act, 1967 – ss.18, 18-A, 18-B, 19, 20, 38 & 39 – Trial
       Court rejected the application for grant of bail of both the
       accused nos.11 and 20 – Both the accused preferred criminal
       appeal before the High Court – By the impugned order, the
       High Court granted bail to the accused no.11 and rejected the
       prayer for bail of accused no.20 – Correctness:
       Held: 1. The impugned order passed by the High Court has dealt
       with all the aspects in great detail – The reasons given for grant
       of bail to accused no.11 and the reasons given for refusal to grant
       bail to accused no.20, in considered opinion of this Court is fully
       justified and reasonable. [Para 8]
       2. While dealing with the prayer for bail of accused no.11, 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 – 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 – Insofar as the accused no.20 is concerned,
       the High Court has found his involvement with banned terrorist


* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                2051

                       Union of India v. Saleem Khan


     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. [Paras 9, 11]

                                  List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act,
     1959; Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

                              List of Keywords
     Grant of Bail; Rejection of bail; Banned organisations; Prima facie
     offence; Expedite the trial; Terrorist organisations; Material collected
     during investigation.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     3644 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2022 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLA NO. 130 of 2021
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 3645 of 2025

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., A Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Prince
     Singh, Nilay Rai, Ms. Poornima Singh, Ms. Radhika Misra, B K
     Satija, Mrs. Sairica Raju, Gautam Bhardwaj, Akshit Pradhan,
     Abhinav Mishra, Arvind Kumar Sharma.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G., V. N.
     Raghupathy, Sreekar Aechuri, Ms. Surbhi Soni, Aniket Chauhan,
     R. Chandrachud, S.I. Abdul Kalam Bagadur Sha, D. Venkata
     Krishna, Ms. Poornima Singh, Ms. Radhika Misra, B K Satija,
     Mrs. Sairica Raju, Gautam Bhardwaj, Akshit Pradhan, Abhinav
     Mishra, Arvind Kumar Sharma.
2052                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The High Court of Karnataka by the impugned judgment and order
       dated 21.04.2022 partly allowed the Criminal Appeal No.130 of
       2021 by granting liberty of bail to the appellant no.1 therein i.e.
       Saleem Khan while at the same time, rejecting the prayer for bail
       of appellant no.2 therein, Mohd. Zaid. Union of India has preferred
       the appeal insofar as the impugned order extending liberty of bail to
       the accused-Saleem Khan, whereas the other accused-Mohd. Zaid
       has preferred the appeal against rejection of his appeal seeking bail.
3.     Relevant facts necessary for deciding the present appeals are as
       follows:
       3.1. On the information given by an Inspector of Police attached to
            the Economic Offence Wing, CCB, Bangalore, First Information
            Report 1 being Crime No.10 of 2020 was registered by
            Suddanguntepalaya Police Station against 17 named accused
            on 10.01.2020, 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, 19673.
            Saleem Khan the respondent in the appeal of the Union of
            India was arrayed as accused no.11 in the said FIR whereas,
            Mohd. Zaid, the appellant in the other appeal was arrayed as
            accused no.20. Hereinafter they would be referred as accused
            no.11 and accused no.20 respectively.
       3.2. Later on, the matter was referred to the National Investigating
            Agency4 on 22.01.2020. NIA accordingly re-registered the case
            as RC No.4/2020/NIA/DLI. Accused no.11 was arrested on
            20.01.2020 whereas, accused no.20 was secured under body


1    In short “FIR”
2    In short “IPC”
3    In short “UAPA”
4    In short “NIA”
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        2053

                      Union of India v. Saleem Khan


           warrant on 09.03.2020. The Investigating Officer filed the charge-
           sheet on 13.07.2020 against accused nos.11, 20 and others.
     3.3. The charges alleged against the accused no.11 were for
          offences punishable under Sections 18/18A/20 and 39 of the
          Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 read with Section 120-B
          of the IPC. Whereas accused no.20, the charge-sheet related
          to offences punishable under Section 18/20/39 of UAPA and
          Section 120-B of IPC.
4.   Accused no.11 and accused no.20 applied for being released on bail
     under Sections 439 of the Cr.P.C. on various grounds which included
     that they have been falsely implicated; there was no evidence to link
     them for the offences alleged; they have been in custody for more
     than a year and there has been no progress in the trial; the charge-
     sheet having already been submitted, they were not required for any
     further interrogation; that they were the sole bread-earners of their
     families and that they belonged to respectable families having no
     criminal antecedents.
5.   The State objected to the prayer for grant of bail. The Trial Court
     after considering the material on record rejected the application for
     grant of bail of both the accused nos.11 and 20 vide order dated
     29.12.2020.
6.   Aggrieved by the rejection of their prayer for bail by the Special Court,
     both the accused nos.11 and 20 preferred Criminal Appeal before
     the High Court of Karnataka registered as Criminal Appeal No.130
     of 2021. The High Court by the impugned order granted bail to the
     accused no.11, Saleem Khan and by the same order rejected the
     prayer for bail of accused no.20, Mohd. Zaid.
7.   We have heard learned Senior Counsels/counsels appearing for the
     parties and have perused the material on record.
8.   At the outset, we may put our caution that 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 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, 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.
2054                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


9.   While dealing with the prayer for bail of accused no.11, 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. Apart from the above, 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.
10. For the above reasons, 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.
11. Insofar as the accused no.20 is concerned, 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 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.
12. We, therefore, find that the High Court was justified in not granting
    bail to accused no.20, Mohd. Zaid.
13. However, 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. 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.
    The prosecution is also directed to ensure full cooperation in leading
    the evidence and getting the trial concluded within the time specified
    above. 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,
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2055

                         Union of India v. Saleem Khan


     who has been released on 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.
14. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan