<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body responsible for interpreting the Constitution and ensuring rule of law (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on 20 April 2026 set a strict three‑month timetable for the trial of Islamic cleric <strong>Md. Abdur Raheman</strong>, who is charged under the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) — anti‑terror law that criminalises support to terrorist organisations; relevant for internal security and law (GS2: Polity)">UAPA</span>. The order comes after the Court rejected his bail plea on merits and directed the Cuttack trial court to hear the case at least twice a week.</p> <h2>Key Developments</h2> <ul> <li>The bench comprising <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant — head of the Indian judiciary, presides over Supreme Court benches (GS2: Polity)">CJI Surya Kant</span> and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered the trial to conclude within 90 days.</li> <li>The trial court must not list any other matter on days when Raheman's trial is scheduled.</li> <li>Both the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Public Prosecutor — government lawyer who conducts criminal prosecution on behalf of the state (GS2: Polity)">Public Prosecutor</span> and the defence counsel must remain present throughout each hearing.</li> <li>No adjournments will be entertained unless a witness can be examined online.</li> <li>If the three‑month deadline cannot be met, the petitioner may approach the High Court for relief.</li> </ul> <h2>Important Facts</h2> <p>Raheman faces two FIRs – one in Delhi and another in Cuttack, Odisha – both alleging that he propagated anti‑national ideas and facilitated recruitment for <em>Al‑Qaeda</em>. He argues that the two cases constitute <span class="key-term" data-definition="Double jeopardy — constitutional principle that a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence (GS2: Polity)">double jeopardy</span>, as they are based on identical material. He has already served 7.5 years for the Delhi FIR, while remaining an <strong>under‑trial</strong> in the Odisha case, which was lodged three days after the Delhi FIR.</p> <p>Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing Raheman, highlighted that the petitioner has spent more than a decade in custody, exceeding the sentence for the first FIR. The Additional Solicitor General, KM Nataraj, opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the terrorism‑related allegations. The Court was informed that 25 witnesses still need to be examined.</p> <h2>UPSC Relevance</h2> <p>Understanding the procedural aspects of terrorism‑related trials is essential for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Security). The case illustrates the balance between individual rights – such as the right to <span class="key-term" data-definition="Bail — temporary release of an accused person pending trial, subject to conditions (GS2: Polity)">bail