Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1895

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli, J.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Saleem Khan – Respondent
SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 30597 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 21-04-2022 in CRLA No. 130 of 2021 Passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
Decided On : 25-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Sairica Raju, Advocate, Mr. B.K. Satija, Advocate, Mr. Gautam Bharadwaj, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the independent application of the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and the error in the High Court's interpretation.

Headnote:
Interpretation of Provisions - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - The court discussed the misinterpretation of Sections 15, 18, 18A, 18B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 in the context of granting bail to the respondent. The court considered the application of these provisions independently and highlighted the error in the High Court's interpretation.
Fact of the Case:

The Additional Solicitor General raised concerns about the misinterpretation of provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 by the High Court in the context of granting bail to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the High Court had misinterpreted the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and highlighted the independent application of the relevant sections in the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the misinterpretation of Sections 15, 18, 18A, 18B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 by the High Court in the context of granting bail to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the misinterpretation of the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and the independent application of the relevant sections in the case.
Final Decision: The court issued notice returnable on 6 January 2023 and permitted Dasti service in addition.

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General submits that while granting bail to the respondent (Saleem Khan, A-11), the High Court has, in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment misinterpreted the provisions of Sections 15, 18, 18A, 18B and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

3. The High Court has observed that in the absence of any allegation in regard to the commission of an offence under Section 15, the offence punishable under Section 18 would not arise.

4. In this context, it has been submitted that Section 18 deals with punishment for conspiracy or attempting to commit or advocating, abetting, advising, inciting or facilitating the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act.

5. The submission is that even though there is no specific allegation with reference to the provisions of Section 15 which deals with a terrorist act, Section 18 (punishment for conspiracy, etc.), Section 18A (punishment for organising of terrorist camps), Section 18B (Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) and Section 20 (punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation) would independently apply.

6. Moreover, it has been submitted that the High Court has declined to grant bail to A-20. The allegation in the chargesheet is that the respondent (A-11) had recruited A-20.

7. On the above premises, it has been submitted that though Al-Hind Organisation is not a banned terrorist organisation, independent of that, the provisions of the statute would be attracted and there is an error on the part of the High Court in interpreting the provisions.

8. Issue notice returnable on 6 January 2023.

9. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document