Organisation Not Banned Under UAPA: Supreme Court Upholds Grant Of Bail To Alleged Workers Of Al-Hind

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court granting liberty of bail to one of the accused persons allegedly associated with Al-Hind while rejecting the prayer for bail of the other accused. One appeal was filed by the Union of India, while the other accused Mohd. Zaid preferred the appeal against the rejection of his appeal seeking bail.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “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 ALHind, 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,”

Factual Background

An FIR was registered against the accused persons under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860, 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and Sections 18, 18-A, 18-B, 19, 20, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. The matter was referred to the National Investigating Agency, and the accused persons were arrested. Both of them applied for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on various grounds. The Trial Court rejected the same. However, the High Court, by the impugned order granted bail to the accused 11, Saleem Khan and rejected the prayer for bail of accused 20, Mohd. Zaid.

Reasoning

While dealing with the prayer for bail of accused 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 ALHind, which admittedly was not a banned organisation under the schedule to UAPA. It was further noticed that the charges had not been framed so far, and the trial had not commenced even though the accused were in custody for 5-1/2 years. Thus, the Bench refused to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court granting bail to accused 11, Saleem Khan.

Coming to the appeal filed against the refusal of bail in the case of appellant 20, Mohd. Zaid, the Bench observed that the High Court had found his involvement with banned terrorist organisations, his active role in operating the 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”, it stated. The Bench thus held that the High Court was justified in not granting bail to accused 20, Mohd. Zaid.

It was noted by the Bench that the trial had not commenced despite a lapse of 5-1/2 years. “Accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without being given a fair and speedy trial”, it said.

“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 held while dismissing the appeals.

“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”, it directed.

Cause Title: Union of India v. Saleem Khan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1008)

Click here to read/download Judgment