The Supreme Court has strongly criticized Karnataka’s prosecution strategy in a UAPA case, stressing that the state cannot prolong the trial while an accused remains in custody. The Court highlighted the UAPA Trial Delay issue and demanded a realistic plan to complete the proceedings.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard the bail petition filed by undertrial prisoner Shahid Khan. The Bench questioned the prosecution’s approach and raised serious concerns about the prolonged incarceration of accused persons awaiting trial.
Supreme Court Criticizes Prosecution Plan
The case involves a charge-sheet containing 707 witnesses, including 64 protected witnesses. The prosecution proposed examining 50 witnesses and three or four protected witnesses in connection with Khan’s case.
The Court rejected the prosecution’s proposed schedule. Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the timeline as “as absurd as a fairytale.”
The Bench also rejected the argument that the accused had caused delays by filing interim bail and discharge applications. Justice Bagchi questioned how an interim bail application could prevent the prosecution from conducting the trial.
He said the prosecution must provide a clear picture of the witnesses it intends to examine. He also criticized the lack of urgency while a citizen remains in jail during the trial.
Justice Bagchi further observed that prosecutors often spend significant time opposing bail applications. He stressed that authorities should instead focus on completing trials within a reasonable period.
CJI Raises Concern Over Trial Court Workload
Chief Justice Surya Kant also raised concerns about the workload of trial courts. He noted that judges sometimes spend considerable time preparing lengthy orders in routine interim bail matters.
The Bench observed that such orders can consume judicial time that courts could otherwise use to conduct the main trial. The Court therefore emphasized the need for a more efficient approach to bail proceedings and trial management.
Shahid Khan Remains in Custody Since 2022
The bail petition concerns Shahid Khan, who was arrested on September 22, 2022. Authorities accused him of involvement in a larger conspiracy involving alleged members of the banned Popular Front of India.
The prosecution invoked Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA. It also relied on Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared for Khan. He submitted that Khan had spent nearly four years in custody. He also stated that Khan had filed only one interim bail application, which followed the death of his father-in-law.
The petitioner further pointed out that nine co-accused facing similar IPC charges had already secured bail.
Supreme Court Directs Steps to Reduce Trial Burden
The Bench learned that the judge handling Khan’s case had 97 other trial matters. The Court expressed concern over such a heavy workload.
CJI Surya Kant stressed that special court judges need manageable caseloads. He suggested that judges should ideally handle no more than 10 to 12 active trials at a time.
The Court directed the Union Government, Karnataka Government and Karnataka High Court to follow earlier directions concerning the creation of sufficient exclusive NIA special courts.
These courts could help reduce the UAPA Trial Delay caused by overloaded trial dockets and allow sensitive cases to progress more efficiently.
Court Sets Witness Examination Direction
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to examine the 50 witnesses and three protected witnesses connected with Khan’s case within the prescribed schedule.
The Bench also allowed Khan to seek regular bail before the trial court after the three protected witnesses give their evidence.
The order highlights the Supreme Court’s concern over prolonged undertrial detention. It also reinforces the principle that prosecution agencies must pursue trials with urgency when an accused remains in custody.
