LexUNION OF INDIA versus SALEEM KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 Secti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.