The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the State of Karnataka over its "absurd" prosecution plan in a UAPA case, observing that the State cannot have the “luxury of prolonging trial for years” while an accused remains incarcerated pending trial.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana made the observations while hearing the bail plea of Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since September 22, 2022 in a case alleging a larger conspiracy involving members of the Popular Front of India to radicalise youth and engage in unlawful and violent activities.

The chargesheet invokes Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, besides Sections 153A, 121A, 120B and 121 of the IPC.

The Court was particularly critical of the prosecution's plan for examining witnesses. Out of 707 witnesses in the case, the State submitted that 50 were proposed to be examined in relation to Khan. Of the 64 protected witnesses, only three or four were proposed to be examined against him.

Justice Bagchi termed the prosecution's approach “as absurd as a fairytale”, questioning how the State could propose to examine the witnesses over a year without providing clarity on the minimum number of witnesses actually required.

The Court also rejected the State's contention that repeated interim bail and discharge applications by the accused were responsible for delaying the trial.

"Does interim bail application [hinder] a trial? You are giving a prosecution plan which is as absurd as a fairytale. You want to examine the witnesses in 1 year...we want clarity on the minimum witnesses you want to examine...[...] shows the lackadaisical approach. We are showing the callousness of a prosecuting agency, which can have the luxury of not giving a clear picture when a citizen languishes in jail pending trial. Your understanding of interim applications and examination of witnesses is faulty. Examination of a witness who has approached for trial and application for bail is made on that day when the witness is present, nowhere in India the witness is sent back. You do not bring your witness, does not mean an interim application will not be filed," Justice Bagchi said.

The judge also expressed concern that prosecuting agencies often appear to devote greater attention to opposing bail applications than to securing convictions through an expeditious trial. The judge had expressed similar concerns earlier as well in another case.

CJI Surya Kant, meanwhile, noted that one of the trial court's orders rejecting interim bail ran to 10-12 pages. He observed that such applications could ordinarily be dealt with through a brief order so that judicial time could instead be devoted to the actual trial.

The bench emphasised that the prosecution cannot indefinitely delay proceedings when an accused has already spent years in custody. The Court had earlier directed the State to place before it a concrete prosecution plan indicating the number of witnesses it intended to examine.

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Khan, submitted that the petitioner had been in custody for over four years and had filed only one interim bail application, which was necessitated by the death of his father-in-law. He also pointed out that nine other accused facing similar allegations were already on bail in relation to the IPC offences.

The Court ultimately declined to accept the State's proposal in its additional affidavit, given the length of Khan's incarceration. The Court also noted that the case is pending before a judge who was handling 97 other trials.

The Court passed an order directing the Union, the State of Karnataka and the Karnataka High Court to ensure compliance with the Court's directions for establishing an adequate number of exclusive NIA courts.

The Court expressed an expectation that the trial judge seized of the petitioner's case be assigned 10-12 trials (including the petitioner's) and gave the petitioner liberty to apply for bail after 3 protected witnesses are examined.

Case : Shahid Khan v. State of Karnataka | SLP(Crl) No. 6100/2026