Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Saleem Khan on 20 August, 2025
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2025 INSC 1008
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 3644 OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.11583 OF 2022)
UNION OF INDIA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SALEEM KHAN ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3645 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(CRL.) NO.1353 OF 2025)
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
bail of appellant no.2 therein, Mohd. Zaid. Union of
Date: 2025.08.20
17:54:22 IST
Reason:
CRL. A. ……./2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.11583/2022
WITH CONNECTED MATTER Page 1 of 7
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,
1967 3 . 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
1
In short “FIR”
2
In short “IPC”
3
In short “UAPA”
CRL. A. ……./2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.11583/2022
WITH CONNECTED MATTER Page 2 of 7
would be referred as accused no.11 and accused
no.20 respectively.
3.2. Later on, the matter was referred to the National
Investigating Agency 4 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 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
4
In short “NIA”
CRL. A. ……./2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.11583/2022
WITH CONNECTED MATTER Page 3 of 7
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
CRL. A. ……./2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.11583/2022
WITH CONNECTED MATTER Page 4 of 7
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.
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
CRL. A. ……./2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.11583/2022
WITH CONNECTED MATTER Page 5 of 7
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
CRL. A. ……./2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.11583/2022
WITH CONNECTED MATTER Page 6 of 7
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, 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.
……………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 20, 2025
CRL. A. ……./2025@ SLP(CRL.) NO.11583/2022
WITH CONNECTED MATTER Page 7 of 7