Supreme Court Questions 707-Witness Trial in PFI Case, Seeks Karnataka’s Prosecution Plan on Bail Plea

August 5, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed serious concern over the prolonged incarceration of an alleged office-bearer of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), observing that an undertrial cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely while the prosecution proposes to examine hundreds of witnesses. Stressing that the constitutional right to a speedy trial cannot be defeated by an impractical prosecution strategy, the Court sought a detailed plan from the Karnataka government for the conduct of the trial.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the bail petition of Shahid Khan, who is facing prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. During the hearing, the Bench questioned the feasibility of conducting a trial involving 707 prosecution witnesses, including 67 protected witnesses, when the accused has already spent nearly four years in judicial custody and the trial has made little progress.

The Court directed the Karnataka government to submit a comprehensive prosecution plan identifying the witnesses it actually proposes to examine, indicating how many protected witnesses are genuinely necessary and providing a realistic timeline for completing the trial.

According to the prosecution, Shahid Khan has been named as Accused No. 14 in a case alleging that office-bearers and members of the Popular Front of India conspired to radicalise Muslim youth, mobilise funds for unlawful activities and wage war against the Government of India. The prosecution further claimed that the alleged conspiracy formed part of a larger terrorist network and had links to the murder of BJP Yuva Morcha leader Praveen Nettaru. Khan is accused of serving as the District President of the PFI’s Davanagere Zone and participating in organisational meetings and recruitment activities between 2019 and 2022.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that Khan has remained in custody for three years and ten months and that the trial has witnessed negligible progress despite an earlier direction of the Supreme Court for its expeditious completion. It was argued that although charges were framed in February 2026, only the testimony of the first prosecution witness had been recorded by August 2026. The petitioner also contended that the Karnataka High Court failed to adequately consider the issue of prolonged incarceration while rejecting his bail plea.

Opposing the bail application, the Karnataka government argued that the allegations involve offences affecting national security and public order. The prosecution sought additional time to obtain instructions regarding the proposed course of the trial and the manner in which evidence would be led.

The Supreme Court, however, observed that the seriousness of the allegations alone cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention. Referring to the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench questioned the practicality of examining more than 700 witnesses in a single criminal case. The Court suggested that the prosecution should first identify only those witnesses whose evidence is essential to prove its case, observing that a structured prosecution strategy is necessary to avoid unnecessary delay and ensure a fair and expeditious trial.

The petitioner further informed the Court that nine co-accused in the same case have already been granted bail and argued that the prolonged delay in the trial, coupled with the principle of parity, justified his release on bail. Taking note of these submissions, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka government to file a detailed prosecution plan specifying the sequence of witnesses, the necessity of protected witnesses and a realistic schedule for completing the recording of evidence. The matter will now be taken up after the State submits the required information.