The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently upheld the trial court's decision to deny bail to lawyer Wasid Khan, who faces serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court found sufficient grounds to believe that the accused, prima facie, attempted to disturb communal harmony with the alleged objective of reviving a pre-British 'Mughal Order'.
The division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, heard the appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. This appeal challenged the order dated February 8, 2025, passed by the Special Judge, NIA Cases, Bhopal, which rejected the appellant’s regular bail plea.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Petition Seeks Action Against Communal Reporting by Hindi Newspapers
The accused, Wasid Khan, is an enrolled advocate and volunteer with a human rights organization. His counsel argued that Khan's activities, which include legal awareness programs and organizational membership drives, do not meet the definition of "unlawful activity" under Section 2(o) of the UAPA. The defense also contended that no act by Khan qualifies as a "terrorist act" as defined under Section 15 of the Act, making his detention unjustified.
The defense questioned the evidentiary value of a seizure memo dated April 23, 2023. They claimed that Khan had no involvement in the material seized since he was already in jail at the time and not present during the seizure process. The memo listed items such as books, CDs, computer devices, pen drives, bank details, pamphlets, and written materials.
Read Also:- MP High Court Urges State to Frame Policy for Welfare of Children Born to Sexual Abuse Survivors
"We have gone through the seizure memo and the seizure memo reveals that incriminating material... prima facie reveals that attempt is being made to cause disruption in the communal harmony amongst the members of the Society, so to achieve an object of establishing a Mughal Order as it existed prior to British rule," the bench stated.
The court noted that it is the trial court's responsibility to examine all evidence and determine the validity of charges. It emphasized that, at this stage, the High Court would not interfere unless there is a compelling reason.
"When we examined the material, then we are of the opinion that it is for the trial Court to decide... the act of the appellant cannot be said to be such that calls for this Court's intervention without completion of the trial," the order read.
The bench also referenced the Supreme Court’s observation in Union of India v. Barkatulla (2024), which upheld the need for balance between national security and individual rights under counter-terrorism laws. The apex court emphasized that even non-violent acts aiding terrorism must be taken seriously.
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the bail plea was premature and not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.
Case Title: Wasid Khan Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2776 Of 2025
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Mohd. Tahir
Counsel for Respondent/State: Advocate Brahmadatt Singh
