Supreme Court Denies Bail To Lawyer In UAPA Case Over Alleged Attempts To Disrupt Communal Harmony

The Supreme Court today(October 16) refused to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which upheld the Trial court's order denying bail to lawyer Wasid Khan, who faces various charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly attempting to disturb communal harmony in the society with the object of establishing 'Mughal Order' which existed prior to British rule.Before a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam argued for Khan. He submitted that the High Court did not deal with various serious allegations, including the fact that Khan was not associated with the Popular Front of India after the organisation was banned in 2022, but came to the conclusion that there is incriminatory evidence against him. For the National Investigating Agency, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, opposed the plea. He stated that the evidence found with Khan included a "Vision 2047" document, which aims to transform India into an Islamic country with the application of Sharia law.Justice Sundresh said that this is a clear case of inciting communal disharmony and attempting to wage war, and the Court is not inclined to interfere. He suggested that the petition can be withdrawn and the petitioner can approach the concerned Court after some time. Eventually, the special leave petition was withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh one before the Trial Court.While Khan had argued that he conducts legal awareness programs, the division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra of the High Court had found that there are incriminating materials against him, which prima facie reveal that an attempt is being made to cause disruption in the communal harmony.He has been booked under IPC Sections 121-A (Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121-Waging or attempting to wage war), 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence. language, etc.), 120-B (Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender) read with Section 13 (1)(b) (Whoever advocates or abets unlawful activity), 18 (Punishment for Conspiracy), 18-A (Punishment for organising of terrorist camps), 18-B (Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Case Details: WASID KHAN v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH|SLP(Crl) No. 11851/2025

Supreme Court Denies Bail To Lawyer In UAPA Case Over Alleged Attempts To Disrupt Communal Harmony

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags