Summary and Analysis of Union of India vs Saleem Khan & Another

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Union of India v. Saleem Khan & Another
Citation: 2025 INSC 1008
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Date of Judgment: August 20, 2025

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment deals with the following legal provisions:

• Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Pertaining to unlawful activities, terrorism, and membership in banned organisations.

• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Criminal conspiracy.

• Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 – Illegal possession of arms.

• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Powers of the High Court and Sessions Court regarding bail.

3. Basic Details of the Judgment

• Appellants:
  Union of India (challenging bail granted to Saleem Khan)
  Mohd. Zaid (challenging denial of bail)

• Respondent: Saleem Khan (in the appeal filed by the Union of India)

• Background:
  FIR was registered in January 2020 against 17 accused for offences under UAPA, IPC, and Arms Act.
  The case was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
  Accused No. 11 (Saleem Khan) and Accused No. 20 (Mohd. Zaid) were arrested and charge-sheeted.
  Both applied for bail, which was rejected by the Special Court.
  The Karnataka High Court granted bail to Saleem Khan but denied it to Mohd. Zaid.
  Both orders were challenged before the Supreme Court.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

a. Factual Background

The case arose from an FIR registered in Bengaluru against 17 individuals for alleged involvement in unlawful activities, including connections with terrorist organisations. The NIA took over the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the accused, including Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) and Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20). Both were charged under various sections of the UAPA and IPC. They sought bail on grounds of false implication, prolonged custody, and lack of evidence.

b. High Court’s Decision

The Karnataka High Court granted bail to Saleem Khan, noting that the organisation he was associated with (AL-Hind) was not banned under the UAPA. However, it denied bail to Mohd. Zaid due to his alleged active involvement with banned organisations and use of the dark web to assist terrorist activities.

c. Supreme Court’s Reasoning

• Regarding Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11):
  The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail.
  It noted that AL-Hind was not a banned organisation, and mere attendance at its meetings did not constitute a prima facie offence under the UAPA.
  The Court also considered that Saleem Khan had been in custody for over 5.5 years, charges were not yet framed, and the trial had not begun.
  Interfering with the bail order after 3.5 years was deemed unjust.

• Regarding Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20):
  The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of bail.
  It found sufficient material in the charge-sheet linking him to banned terrorist organisations and illegal activities on the dark web.
  Although Mohd. Zaid had been granted bail in a separate UAPA case in Tamil Nadu, the Court held that the allegations in the present case were serious and justified the refusal of bail.

• Delay in Trial:
  The Court expressed concern over the delay in trial (5.5 years) and directed the Trial Court to expedite the process and conclude it within two years.
  The prosecution and accused were directed to cooperate fully.
  The bail granted to Saleem Khan was subject to the condition that he would not delay the trial; otherwise, the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail.

d. Final Order

• The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.

• Bail granted to Saleem Khan was upheld.

• Bail denied to Mohd. Zaid was confirmed.

• The Trial Court was directed to complete the trial within two years.

5. Significance of the Judgment

• The judgment reinforces the importance of prima facie evidence in bail matters under stringent laws like the UAPA.

• It highlights the right to a speedy trial and the court’s duty to prevent indefinite incarceration without trial.

• The ruling distinguishes between mere association with non-banned organisations and active involvement with banned terrorist groups.

• It underscores the discretion of courts in bail matters and the limited scope of appellate interference unless arbitrary or unjust.