The lower court ordered to conduct bi-weekly hearings and complete the trial within three months; the accused continues to remain in custody in separate Delhi and Odisha cases
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court has refused to grant bail to Mohammad Abdurrahman, an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, but has issued strong directions to ensure the speedy completion of his trial.
The case was heard on Monday by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The court acknowledged that the accused had been in custody for a long period but said that trial delay must be addressed through strict timelines.
The accused, Mohammad Abdurrahman, is facing charges under UAPA and is also involved in separate cases registered in Delhi and Odisha. He has already spent around seven and a half years in custody in one of the cases.
While denying bail, the court issued detailed instructions to the trial court in Cuttack, asking it to ensure that proceedings are conducted twice a week and completed within three months.
A bench direction stated, “The trial must be given priority over all other matters and no unnecessary adjournments should be allowed.”
The court further directed that on days when the case is listed, no other matter should be taken up, ensuring uninterrupted hearings.
It also instructed the prosecution to ensure the presence of witnesses at every hearing. If a witness is unable to attend physically, their testimony must be recorded through online means.
The Supreme Court emphasised that defence and prosecution lawyers must remain present throughout proceedings and avoid unnecessary delays.
In an exceptional direction, the court said the trial should continue even during court vacation periods if required. Judges, if needed, may take leave later, but the case must not be delayed.
Legal observers note that such directions are aimed at balancing the rights of undertrial prisoners with the need for serious and time-bound investigation in sensitive cases.
Abdurrahman’s counsel had argued for bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration without trial completion. However, the court maintained that a speedy trial, rather than immediate release, was the appropriate remedy at this stage.
The matter continues to be closely watched as it involves the interpretation of procedural delays in cases under stringent anti-terror laws.
The next phase of proceedings in the fast-tracked trial will now be monitored strictly under the Supreme Court’s directions.
