Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with two connected criminal appeals arising from bail orders under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The first appeal was filed by Union of India against the grant of bail to accused no.11, Saleem Khan, while the second was filed by accused no.20, Mohd. Zaid, against the refusal of bail. The High Court of Karnataka by impugned order dated 21.04.2022 partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2021, granting bail to Saleem Khan and rejecting the bail prayer of Mohd. Zaid. An FIR was registered on 10.01.2020 as Crime No.10 of 2020 by Suddanguntepalaya Police Station against 17 named accused under Section 120-B IPC, Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act, and Sections 18, 18-A, 18-B, 19, 20, 38 & 39 UAPA. The case was transferred to NIA on 22.01.2020 and re-registered as RC No.4/2020/NIA/DLI. Saleem Khan was arrested on 20.01.2020 and Mohd. Zaid was secured under body warrant on 09.03.2020. The chargesheet was filed on 13.07.2020. Both accused applied for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on grounds of false implication, no evidence, prolonged custody, no progress in trial, and no criminal antecedents. The State opposed bail. The Special Court rejected both bail applications on 29.12.2020. The High Court in appeal granted bail to Saleem Khan, finding that allegations related to his connections with AL-Hind, which is not a banned organisation under the Schedule to UAPA, and attending its meetings did not amount to a prima facie offence. The High Court also noted that charges had not been framed and trial had not commenced despite prolonged custody. For Mohd. Zaid, the High Court found involvement with banned terrorist organisations, active role in operating dark web, and assisting members of banned terrorist organisations, and also noted his involvement in another UAPA case. The Supreme Court at the outset expressed caution not to delve deep into facts since it was dealing with bail appeals. It found the High Court's reasoning fully justified. The Court held that grant of bail to Saleem Khan was proper especially as the order was passed 3.5 years ago, charges had not been framed, and he had been in custody for 5.5 years. For Mohd. Zaid, the Court upheld the denial of bail based on chargesheet material showing his involvement with banned terrorist organisations and dark web activities. However, the Court expressed concern that the trial had not commenced despite 5.5 years and directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it within two years, with the prosecution and accused cooperating. It also gave liberty to apply for cancellation of bail of Saleem Khan if he tried to delay the trial. Both appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Bail - UAPA - Prima Facie Offence - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 18, 18A, 20, 39 - Accused's alleged connection with AL-Hind, not a banned organisation under Schedule to UAPA, and attending its meetings did not amount to prima facie offence; High Court's grant of bail was justified and Supreme Court declined to interfere after 3.5 years, noting charges not framed and accused in custody for 5.5 years. Held that no justification existed to interfere with bail. (Paras 9-10) B) Bail - UAPA - Denial of Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 18, 20, 39 - Accused's involvement with banned terrorist organisations, active role in operating dark web and assisting members of banned terrorist organisations, based on chargesheet material, justified denial of bail; High Court was correct in not granting bail despite another UAPA case where bail was granted by Madras High Court. Held that denial of bail was justified. (Paras 11-12) C) Criminal Trial - Speedy Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439 - Accused cannot be allowed to languish in jail without fair and speedy trial; trial had not commenced despite 5.5 years custody and over 100 witnesses; Court directed Trial Court to expedite trial and conclude within two years, prosecution and accused to cooperate, and liberty to apply for cancellation of bail if accused no.11 delays trial. Held that direction for speedy trial was necessary. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether High Court erred in granting bail to accused no.11 under UAPA when allegations only pertain to attending meetings of non-banned organisation AL-Hind; Whether High Court erred in denying bail to accused no.20 despite long custody and delay, given involvement with banned terrorist organisations and dark web; Whether continued detention without trial for 5.5 years violates fair and speedy trial and warrants directions
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed; High Court order granting bail to Saleem Khan and denying bail to Mohd. Zaid affirmed; Trial Court directed to expedite trial and conclude within two years; prosecution and accused directed to cooperate; liberty to apply for cancellation of bail if accused no.11 delays trial
Law Points
- Under UAPA
- connection with non-banned organisation and attending its meetings does not constitute prima facie offence
- involvement with banned terrorist organisations and dark web activities justify denial of bail
- right to fair and speedy trial requires expeditious conclusion even in UAPA cases
- delay in framing charges and commencement of trial relevant in bail consideration
