Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008, the appellant-Accused 4 challenged the order passed by the Trial Court denying him bail since he was allegedly involved in the terrorist activities and receiving funds through Cryptocurrency from online handler utilized to carry out the terrorist activities, the Division Bench of H. P. Sandesh* and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ., held that that the Trial Court in detail discussed the material collected against the Accused 4 which substantiated the prima facie case against him, thus, no ground was made out to enlarge him on bail.
Accordingly, the Court denied the appeal at hand.
Background
The Accused 4, in the present appeal, was allegedly a member of the proscribed terrorist organization, Islamic State and was radicalized and recruited by Accused 2 who was his college mate. Accused 4 allegedly participated in reconnaissance and arson activities with an intention to wage war against the Government. He was also accused of facilitating the transfer of terror funds by sharing crypto currency wallet details, converting the received funds into cash, and handing it over to Accused 2. Additionally, he allegedly purchased a Honda Activa for use in these activities, funded by money received through an online handler.
In January 2023, the accused was arrested and upon personal search, one black Redmi Note 5 Pro mobile phone with an Airtel SIM card and a micro-SD card was seized from Accused 4. Accused 2 allegedly sent him videos/PDFs related to ISIS, the beheading of kafirs, jihad, bayans of radicalized maullana and videos demonstrating arson and the use of Molotov cocktails (petrol bombs). Accused 4 allegedly received cryptocurrency into his Zebpay account from online handlers as well as into the crypto account of his college friend. Accused 4 further disclosed that he, along with Accused 2, participated in the arson of an Innova car in Mangaluru and a paint shop in Bramhavara and conducted reconnaissance at several locations in and around Mangaluru.
The Trial Court taking note of accused’s involvement in the terrorist activities, rejected the bail petition.
Issue, Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the issue involved in the present appeal was whether the accused made out the ground to be enlarged on bail by setting aside the order and whether it required interference of the High Court?
The Court perused the Forensic Science Laboratory report which revealed the images of electric substations, boatyards, gas stations, oil tankers, shops and various locations identified during the reconnaissance by Accused 4, and news clippings about the jeep and Innova car that were found in the mobile phone of Accused 2 as well as the arson-related images that were recovered from the device which was recovered from the accused. The Court, thus, stated that it clearly demonstrated that the appellant was actively involved in reconnaissance and arson activities in and around Mangaluru as alleged.
The Court further stated that Accused 2 played a pivotal role in radicalizing and recruiting Accused 4 to further the agenda of the proscribed organization, Islamic State. Both Accused 2 and Accused 4 were actively involved in conducting reconnaissance and arson activities in and around Mangaluru. The Court further emphasized that it was established that Accused 4 received funds through Cryptocurrency from online handler affiliated with the terrorist outfit and those funds were subsequently utilized to carry out the terrorist activities.
Thus, the Court held opined that it was not a case for setting aside the Trial Court’s order since the material collected against the appellant was discussed in detail by it which substantiated the prima facie case against the Accused 4. Hence, no ground was made out to enlarge him on bail.
Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal at hand.
[Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh @ Rishaan Thajuddin @ Rishan v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 405, decided on 22-1-2026]
*Judgement authored by Justice H. P. Sandesh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Usman P
For the Respondent: P. Prasanna Kumar, SPL. PP