Introduction:

In Union of India v. Saleem Khan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 3644–3645 of 2025, reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 833), the Supreme Court dealt with two contrasting bail pleas under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The parties were Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11), who had been granted bail by the Karnataka High Court, and Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20), whose bail plea was rejected. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), acting for the Union of India, appealed both decisions. The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and KV Viswanathan, ultimately dismissed the appeals—upholding bail for Saleem Khan while affirming the High Court’s refusal of bail to Mohd. Zaid. Importantly, the Court expressed serious concern over the prolonged pre-trial custody of both accused and mandated the expeditious conduct of trial within two years.

Arguments of the Parties:

The Union contended that Saleem Khan’s association with the group “Al-Hind,” alleged to have extremist agendas, justified his prosecution under sections of UAPA (specifically 18/18A/20/39), along with criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC. They argued that mere claim of “non-proscription” should not dilute the gravity of activities like attending jihadi meetings or involvement in extremist material. Regarding Mohd. Zaid, the State pointed to his active engagement with banned terrorist organizations, including facilitating dark-web communications—thus rendering him ineligible for bail under UAPA.

The High Court had granted bail on the ground that Al-Hind was not a banned entity under UAPA’s schedule; mere membership or attendance at its gatherings did not constitute a prima facie offense. Saleem Khan emphasized prolonged detention of over 5½ years without trial commencement or framing of charges.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, constrained by the narrow scope of criminal appeal concerning bail, refrained from re-examining factual claims but upheld the Karnataka High Court’s reasoned spectrums. The Bench affirmed: “Attending meetings of Al-Hind, a non-banned organisation, does not attract a prima facie offence under UAPA.” It criticized undue interference with a well-considered 2022 HC order. Further, it held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration (5½ years) without trial offended principles of fairness and liberty. Consequently, Saleem Khan’s bail was upheld.

Regarding Mohd. Zaid, the Court concurred with the High Court’s rejection of bail, based on compelling allegations of his involvement with banned terrorist groups, active dark-web participation, and links to extremist activity. Despite his securing bail in separate UAPA proceedings in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that the distinct gravity of the current case merited denial of bail here.

Crucially, the Court mandated completion of the trial within two years, noting that the case involved over 100 prosecution witnesses. Both prosecution and accused were directed to cooperate fully; failure could invite cancellation of Saleem Khan’s bail.

Broader Significance

This judgment underscores the fine balancing act between civil liberties and national security. While UAPA crimes are serious, mere association with non-proscribed groups cannot per se trigger criminal liability. Moreover, the judgment strongly reiterates the fundamental right to a speedy trial, safeguarding against the misuse of detention as a measure of punishment before adjudication.