# Union of India v. Saleem Khan

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1008
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3644 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-saleem-khan-38458
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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.

## Text

[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
Report1 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 chargesheet 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 chargesheet 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 chargesheet 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