The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the Karnataka government over its prosecution plan in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case involving a Muslim man, saying the State cannot have the “luxury of prolonging trials for years” while an accused remains in custody.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a bail plea filed by Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since September 2022 in a case linked to an alleged Popular Front of India (PFI) conspiracy.
The court questioned the prosecution’s plan to examine hundreds of witnesses and said the proposed schedule was not realistic.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the plan as “as absurd as a fairy tale”, questioning how the trial could be completed within a reasonable period if the prosecution intended to examine such a large number of witnesses.
707 Witnesses Listed in Case
According to the prosecution, 707 witnesses, including 64 protected witnesses, have been listed in the case. However, the Karnataka government had proposed examining around 50 witnesses in relation to Khan, including only three or four protected witnesses.
The Supreme Court said it would be “practically impossible” to examine 707 witnesses and complete the trial within a reasonable time under the existing arrangement.
The bench also expressed concern over the workload of the special court hearing the case. The judge was reportedly handling around 97 UAPA trials, prompting the court to question how such a large number of cases could be completed efficiently.
CJI Surya Kant said judges should not be burdened with dozens of UAPA cases and stressed the need for additional special courts.
“There should be two exclusive UAPA courts, if the cases number between 25 and 30. Three in a State, if the cases number 35 to 40,” the Chief Justice said, adding that “you cannot give 70 to 90 cases to a judge like this.”
Witnesses Must Be Examined Without Unnecessary Delay
The Supreme Court also rejected the State’s approach of linking delays to interim bail or discharge applications filed by accused persons.
Justice Bagchi questioned the argument that such applications were responsible for delaying the proceedings. The bench said that when a witness is available, the examination should continue rather than being stopped simply because an accused has filed a bail application.
“When a witness is present, nowhere in India is the witness sent back because a bail application has been filed,” the court observed.
The bench also criticised the prosecution for, in its view, spending considerable effort opposing bail applications instead of ensuring that witnesses were produced and the trial moved forward.
Shahid Khan Has Been in Custody Since 2022
Khan’s lawyer, senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, told the court that his client had spent nearly four years in custody and had filed only one interim bail application, following the death of his father-in-law.
He also pointed out that nine other accused facing similar allegations under the IPC had already been granted bail.
The charges against Khan include provisions of the UAPA and IPC relating to alleged conspiracy, promoting enmity and unlawful activities. The prosecution has alleged that PFI members planned to radicalise young people and engage in unlawful and violent activities.
The Supreme Court directed Karnataka to create the necessary infrastructure for an additional special court exclusively handling UAPA cases. The required sanctions and staff are to be arranged within two weeks.
The court directed the new arrangement to prioritise three protected witnesses and other important witnesses connected with Khan’s case. The material prosecution evidence concerning him is to be recorded within three months.
After that period, Khan will be free to apply for bail again.
The court stressed that the objective was to ensure a speedy and fair trial, particularly when an accused has already spent years in custody.
