Supreme Court in UAPA case rules that attending jihadi meetings is not a crime. Bail granted to Saleem Khan, while co-accused Mohd. Zaid gets no relief.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on August 20, 2025, delivered a judgment in Union of India v. Saleem Khan & Mohd. Zaid, refusing to interfere with a Karnataka High Court order (2022) that had granted bail to Saleem Khan but denied the same relief to Mohd. Zaid, both accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
Background of the Case
An FIR (Crime No.10/2020) was registered on January 10, 2020, by Suddanguntepalaya Police Station, Bengaluru, against 17 accused persons under Sections 120-B IPC, 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, and multiple provisions of the UAPA.
The case was later handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on January 22, 2020, and re-registered as RC No.4/2020/NIA/DLI.
Saleem Khan (Accused No.11) was arrested on January 20, 2020, while Mohd. Zaid (Accused No.20) was secured under a body warrant on March 9, 2020.
A charge sheet was filed on July 13, 2020, against them and other accused persons.
ALSO READ: CBI to Probe Lawyers’ Bribery Demand for Favourable NCLT Order
Karnataka High Court’s 2022 Order
The High Court granted bail to Saleem Khan, observing that the charge-sheet only showed his association with Al-Hind, an organisation not banned under UAPA. Thus, attending its meetings did not constitute a prima facie offence.
However, the High Court rejected bail for Mohd. Zaid, noting his active involvement with banned organisations, use of the dark web, and assistance to terror groups.
Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan upheld the High Court’s findings:
The Court clarified that the prosecution or trial court may seek cancellation of Saleem Khan’s bail if it is found that he attempts to delay the trial.
The Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the High Court’s order, especially since Khan had already been in custody for 5½ years without trial. The Court reiterated that Al-Hind is not a banned organisation, and mere attendance at its meetings does not amount to a UAPA offence.
The Court found sufficient material in the charge-sheet showing Zaid’s deeper involvement with banned terrorist outfits and his role in facilitating extremist activities. Hence, bail was rightly denied.
The Court expressed serious concern that, despite 5 & 1/2 years in custody, charges had not been framed and trial had not commenced. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial within two years, given that over 100 witnesses are to be examined.
ALSO READ: NCLT Directs BCCI to Submit Application for Withdrawing Insolvency Plea Against Byju’s
Case Title:
Union of India Vs Saleem Khan
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 3644 OF 2025, SLP(CRL.) NO.11583 OF 2022
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bribe