The Supreme Court of India refused to grant bail to Islamic cleric Md. Abdur Raheman on merits, but ordered a time-bound trial in his case. He is being prosecuted in Odisha under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly promoting anti-national views and assisting in the recruitment of youth to Al-Qaeda.

Bail Refused, Trial Schedule Fixed:

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the trial court in Cuttack to hear the case at least twice every week and finish the trial within three months.

The Court also told the prosecution to make sure enough witnesses are present on every hearing date. It asked the trial judge to adjust other cases so that Raheman’s case can be heard without delay. The Court said, “Presiding officer of trial court will not list any other case on any date when trial of this case is to be taken up”.

No Vacation Break, No Adjournments Allowed:

Since the trial court’s summer vacation starts on June 1, the Bench said that, due to the special situation, the court should keep working until the trial is over. It added that the Presiding Officer can take leave later if needed.

The Court further said, “The Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel shall remain present throughout the day [on all dates] and assist the Presiding Officer. No adjournment shall be sought or granted. No witness shall apply and be exempted from appearance except when they can be examined online”.

The petitioner has also been given permission to approach the High Court if required, especially if the trial is not completed within the given time.

Two FIRs, Double Jeopardy Claim:

Briefly, Md. Abdur Raheman was booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in two FIRs—one in Delhi and another in Cuttack. He argued that both cases are based on the same facts and evidence, and therefore raised the issue of double jeopardy.

He has already been convicted in the Delhi case and has reportedly served 7.5 years in jail. However, he is still in custody as an undertrial in the Cuttack case, where the FIR was filed three days after the Delhi FIR.

Arguments in Court:

In the Supreme Court, the Senior Counsel who appeared for him argued that he has spent more than 10 years in custody, even after completing his sentence in the first case. Opposing bail, the Additional Solicitor General stressed the seriousness of the allegations. The Court was also told that 25 witnesses still need to be examined.

Rights vs Society:

At one point, CJI Kant said that while people accused of terrorism have rights, society also has the right to live peacefully.

Case Details: MD. Abdur Raheman @ MD. Abdur Raheman Alli Khan vs State of Odisha (SLP (Crl) No. 1727/2026)