2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15331

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. Sandesh, Venkatesh Naik T, JJ
Shahid Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1475 OF 2025

Successive bail applications require a demonstrable change in circumstances. Absence of sanction for a particular accused does not preclude framing of charges if cognizance is taken for the offence. Procedural lapses in seizure do not automatically entitle bail.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 22B, 25 and 43D - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153A and 120B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 172(2) and 482 - Bail - Rejection - Appeal - Successive bail applications - Change in circumstances - Sanction for prosecution - Seizure procedure - Delay in trial.

(B) Successive Bail Applications - Principle - Personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with procedure established by law - A person whose bail application is rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application if there is a change in fact situation - Issues canvassed earlier cannot be re-agitated on same grounds - Successive bail applications are not barred per se; they can be entertained only if there is demonstrable change in circumstances since prior rejection. (Para 11)

(C) Sanction for Prosecution - Section 45 of UAP Act mandates that sanction is a pre-condition for the Court to take cognizance of an offence under Chapters IV and VI, but it is not necessarily tied to a particular accused - Absence of sanction for a particular accused does not by itself preclude framing of charges if cognizance has been taken for the offences alleged. (Paras 14, 15)

(D) Seizure Procedure - Failure to strictly comply with procedure under Section 25 of UAP Act for seizure of property does not by itself constitute a sufficient ground for granting bail, particularly when there is material connecting the accused to the offence - Procedural lapse may be treated as an irregularity and does not go to the root of the prosecution case. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, accused No.14, and nineteen others were prosecuted in Special Case No.744 of 2023 for offences under Sections 153A and 120B of IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B and 22B of UAP Act. The allegations were that the accused, as members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), had extreme religious views, conspired to radicalise Muslim youth towards terrorist acts, and were involved in raising funds, organising training camps, and committing unlawful activities. The appellant was arrested on 22.09.2022. His bail application was rejected by the trial Court on 2.5.2025, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe he had committed the offences and that the court was barred from granting bail under Section 43D of UAP Act.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the trial Court had dealt with all aspects of the material in its order and had rightly rejected the bail application. The Court held that the appeal did not require interference.

Issues: The main issues were whether the impugned order of rejection of bail suffered from any arbitrariness or illegality, and whether the appellant had demonstrated any change in circumstances for a successive bail application, including non-compliance with seizure procedure under Chapter V of UAP Act, absence of sanction under Section 18 of UAP Act, and delay in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that Section 45 of UAP Act mandates sanction for taking cognizance of offences under Chapters IV and VI, but it is not tied to a particular accused. Failure to follow procedure under Section 25 of UAP Act for seizure does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Successive bail applications require a demonstrable change in circumstances since prior rejection. In this case, the new contentions raised by the appellant were not sufficient to warrant granting bail. Result : Appeal dismissed.