The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the pace of trial in a UAPA case against Shahid Khan, an alleged office-bearer of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), questioning how the prosecution proposed to examine 707 witnesses, including 67 protected witnesses, while the accused had already spent nearly four years in custody.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, hearing the bail plea of the accused, directed the State of Karnataka to place a prosecution plan indicating the witnesses it proposes to examine, the number of protected witnesses required and a realistic timeline for completing the trial.
Shahid Khan, arrayed as Accused No. 14, is being prosecuted under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code in a case alleging that PFI office-bearers and members conspired to radicalise Muslim youth, raise funds for unlawful activities and wage war against the Government. The prosecution also alleges that the conspiracy formed part of a broader plan involving terrorist activities and is linked to the murder of BJP Yuva Morcha leader Praveen Nettaru. Shahid Khan is alleged to have served as the District President of PFI’s Davanagere Zone and to have participated in meetings and recruitment activities between 2019 and 2022.
Appearing for the accused, counsel submitted that his client had remained in custody for three years and ten months, while the trial had made virtually no progress despite an earlier direction of the Supreme Court to expedite it.
“
“There are more than 700 witnesses and about 67 protected witnesses. Charges were framed in February 2026. We are now in August and only PW-1 has been examined. The High Court has not even dealt with the question of delay. My client has already spent three years and ten months in custody.”
The State opposed the bail plea, contending that the allegations against the petitioner were grave, and sought time to obtain instructions on the future course of the trial. The Bench, however, observed that the seriousness of the allegations could not justify an unreasonably prolonged trial, especially when the petitioner had already spent nearly four years in custody. Questioning the prosecution’s proposal to examine over 700 witnesses, including 67 protected witnesses, the Court directed the State to place a realistic prosecution plan with timelines for recording evidence.
“
“How are you going to have 700 witnesses in a trial?…Identify five or six witnesses who are absolutely essential and examine them first. File a prosecution plan specifying how many protected witnesses are really required and place before us a realistic timeline. The accused has already remained an undertrial for almost four years.”
The petitioner also informed the Court that nine co-accused had already been granted bail, while submitting that the petitioner continued to remain incarcerated despite the slow progress of the proceedings. The Bench directed the State to file a detailed prosecution plan and listed the matter for further consideration.