― Advertisement ―

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY UNDER ADV. PALLAVI SHARMA

About the OpportunityApplications are invited for a litigation internship at a chamber based in Gulmohar Park, New Delhi for the months of May,...
HomeMd. Abdur Raheman @ Md. Abdur Raheman ... vs State Of Odisha...

Md. Abdur Raheman @ Md. Abdur Raheman … vs State Of Odisha on 20 April, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Md. Abdur Raheman @ Md. Abdur Raheman … vs State Of Odisha on 20 April, 2026

     ITEM NO.58                             COURT NO.1                SECTION II-B

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1727/2026

     [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11-2025
     in BLAPL No.644/2025 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack]

     MD. ABDUR RAHEMAN @ MD. ABDUR RAHEMAN ALLI KHAN                   Petitioner(s)

                                                   VERSUS

     STATE OF ODISHA                                                   Respondent(s)

     Date : 20-04-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

     For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
                        Mr. Sarim Naved, Adv.
                        Ms. Maulshree Pathak, AOR
                        Mr. Mohd Noumaan, Adv.
                        Mr. Shahid Nadeem, Adv.
                        Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Adv.

     For Respondent(s) :Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.
                        Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Adv. Gen.
                        Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR
                        Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv.
                        Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv.
                        Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv.
                        Ms. Shaiwa Singh, Adv.
                        Mr. Ruturaj Satpathy, Adv.
                        Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv.

                             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

1. The petitioner was one of the accused in FIR No.67/2015 dated

14.12.2015 registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi under

SPONSORED

Section 18, 18B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Act, 1967 (“UAPA”). The allegations were that he was indulging in
Signature Not Verified

teaching anti-national ideals and was actively involved in aiding
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.04.24
16:11:45 IST
Reason:

the recruitment of youth to Al-Qaeda in Indian Sub-continent. In

1
the above-stated FIR, he was arrested on 15.12.2015. The trial was

concluded and the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi, vide judgment dated 10.02.2023, convicted the petitioner

under Sections 18 and 18B of the UAPA. He was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for seven years & five months, respectively,

with a fine of Rs.25,000. The petitioner has undergone that

sentence.

2. Another FIR bearing No.244/2015 was registered on 17.12.2015

at Police Station Jagatpur, UPD, Cuttack, under Sections 17, 18,

18B, and 20 of the UAPA. The petitioner has been arrested in this

case also. Since the criminal trial arising therefrom remains

pending, he approached the Trial Court, initially, and then the

High Court, seeking his release on bail. The High Court, vide, the

impugned order dated 11.11.2025 has declined to grant bail, giving

rise to these proceedings.

3. The petitioner’s primary contention is that he has been in

custody for more than 10 years, and since he has already completed

his sentence in the case registered at New Delhi, he deserves to be

released on bail.

4. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of

India, as well as learned Advocate General, appearing for the State

of Orissa, have opposed the prayer. It is urged that, having regard

to the nature of allegations and the material placed on the record,

it may not be expedient to release the petitioner on bail.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. At this stage,

keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case

and instead of going into the merits of the petitioner’s prayer for

2
bail, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with the

following directions:

(i) The Sessions Court at Cuttack, before which S.T.

Case No.103/2017 is pending for trial, is directed to take up

the above-stated trial at least twice in a week;

(ii) The prosecution is directed to ensure that

sufficient witnesses remain present for examination on all the

dates;

(iii) The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court

and the portfolio Judge of Cuttack Special Division are

requested to allow the learned Sessions Judge to entrust other

urgent matters pending in his Court to the Courts of other

Additional Sessions Judges, etc. or to adjourn those matters

which are not urgent in nature;

(iv) The learned Sessions Judge, i.e., the Presiding

Officer of the trial, will not list any other case on the date

when the trial in the present case is to be taken up. That day

shall be spent entirely on recording prosecution evidence, so

that all the remaining 25 prosecution witnesses can be

examined as early as possible;

(v) The Trial Court shall continue to function till the

trial is concluded. We are informed by the learned Advocate

General that summer vacations in the District and Sessions

Courts in the State of Orissa will commence on 01.05.2026.

Thus, if need be, the Presiding Officer will be entitled to

avail vacations later on;

(vi) The Public Prosecutor as well as the defence counsel

3
are directed to remain present in Court throughout the day and

assist the Presiding Officer. In this regard, no adjournment

shall be sought or granted;

(vii) No witness shall apply and be exempted from

appearance, except in a case where such witness can be

examined online;

6. The Presiding Officer and the parties shall ensure that

prosecution evidence is closed within two months. The Presiding

Officer may, thereafter, give an opportunity to the petitioner to

lead defense evidence, if any, and conclude the final hearing

within one month.

7. However, if on account of some unforeseen circumstances, the

trial is not concluded, the petitioner is permitted to approach the

High Court directly.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above

terms.

9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT)                                                (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                                           4



Source link