The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Karnataka government’s prosecution strategy in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case involving a Muslim man, describing it as absurd and reiterating that the state cannot prolong trials indefinitely while an accused remains incarcerated.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana delivered the remarks while considering the bail application of Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since 22 September 2022, Live Law reported. Khan is accused of participating in an alleged conspiracy by members of the banned Popular Front of India to radicalise young people and carry out unlawful, violent activities. The chargesheet against him invokes Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA, along with Sections 153A, 121A, 120B, and 121 of the Indian Penal Code.
During the hearing, the court scrutinised the prosecution's plan for witness examinations. Out of 707 listed witnesses, the state government proposed examining 50 people in relation to Khan, including three or four of the 64 protected witnesses. Justice Bagchi described the prosecution's approach as absurd as a fairytale and questioned why the state required a year to complete witness testimonies without providing a clear schedule.
The bench also dismissed arguments from the prosecution that delays were caused by repeated interim bail and discharge applications filed by the defense. Justice Bagchi observed that the state could not blame bail petitions for delays when it had failed to bring its own witnesses to court. The judges voiced concern over prosecuting agencies placing greater emphasis on opposing bail than on securing convictions through speedy trials. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that one trial court order dismissing interim bail spanned 10 to 12 pages, remarking that such applications ought to be resolved with briefer orders to save judicial time for the trial itself.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Khan, told the court that his client had spent four years in custody and had submitted only a single interim bail plea following the death of his father-in-law. He added that nine co-accused facing similar allegations regarding IPC offences were already out on bail.
Citing Khan’s extended detention, the Supreme Court refused to accept the state’s proposed prosecution timeline. The court expressed shock upon learning that the presiding judge handling Khan's trial was currently overseeing 97 other cases. As a result, the bench instructed the Union government, the Karnataka government, and the Karnataka High Court to enforce previous directives for establishing adequate numbers of exclusive National Investigation Agency courts, adding that a judge handling UAPA matters should ideally be assigned no more than 10 to 12 trials at a time.