Karnataka High Court Cancels Bail Of 7 Booked For Radicalizing Youth In Ballari ISIS Module Case
The Karnataka High Court cancelled bail granted to seven men accused of being involved with the Ballari ISIS module, charged under the UAPA for allegedly recruiting and radicalization of vulnerable youth to carry out terrorist activities in India, remarking that the alleged procedural lapse was raised belatedly. The court was hearing four criminal appeals filed by NIA challenging Special...
The Karnataka High Court cancelled bail granted to seven men accused of being involved with the Ballari ISIS module, charged under the UAPA for allegedly recruiting and radicalization of vulnerable youth to carry out terrorist activities in India, remarking that the alleged procedural lapse was raised belatedly.
The court was hearing four criminal appeals filed by NIA challenging Special Court's orders dated 08.04.2025, 11.03.2025 and 14.03.2025 granting bail to respondent/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 observing that grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused in writing who arrested in 2023.
The NIA registered the case under Section 120B(criminal conspiracy) IPC and Sections 17(Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18(Punishment for conspiracy, etc), 18B(Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) and 20(Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation) UAPA.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T noted that the interpretation given by Special Judge is that the grounds of arrest was not conveyed to the accused in writing, and the arrest memo is unacceptable as it does not indicate the grounds of arrest being incorporated therein.
"The Remand Order clearly reveals that the copy of remand application was submitted to the Special Court and the reasons for arrest was also appended to the remand application," it said.
The court referred to Supreme Court judgments including Mihir Rajesh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra & Anr and said that the Supreme Court had held that where the police is already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for the arrest, the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrestee on his arrest.
"The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Mihir's case (supra) observed that, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings. Infact, the date of decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is 06.11.2025 and admittedly, the appellants herein had been arrested much earlier i.e. on 18.12.2023 and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to raise any grievance. The grievance about the alleged procedural lapse has been raised very belatedly i.e. after more than almost one year of the arrest and there is no whisper of any prejudice being caused to the appellants, who were represented by counsel from day one".
It thereafter referred to Supreme Court's order in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025) wherein it was held that while compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the mere absence of written grounds "does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal", unless it results in demonstrable prejudice by denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend themselves and absence of any demonstrated prejudice, coupled with the inordinate delay in raising grievance.
"Though the grounds of arrest is not in writing, the same is informed orally to the accused and their relatives and two independent witnesses have acknowledged the same and there is a delay in urging the said ground. As the accused have failed to secure bail even after making all efforts, earlier, a new ground is raised that they were not informed in writing about the grounds of arrest and not made out any demonstrable prejudice caused to defend the same and only after thought invoked the ground when unsuccessful earlier. Considering the detailed analysis made above, there is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that the copy of remand application in the purported exercise of grounds of arrest in writing was provided to the respondents/accused persons before passing of the order of remand and applied judicious mind. Thus it will not vitiate the arrest and subsequent remand of the respondents/accused," the bench said.
A case was registered by the NIA in 2023 based on credible information received by the Central Government that many radicalised individuals aligned to ISIS ideology were operating in Telegram groups from Bellary, Mumbai and Jamshedpur and they were disseminating ISIS propaganda, radicalising and recruiting youth into a jamaat (organization) inspired by ISIS and they had hatched a conspiracy to use young recruits for committing violent terror attacks in India.
The information allegedly revealed that Ballari based Mohammed Sulaiman @ Minaj/Accused No.1 was the main operator and was suspected to be in contact with the foreign based handlers for carrying out violent jihad in India. It was alleged that he and his associates were planning to create a jamath for establishing Sharia rule in India, for which, he had already made a road map and was circulating it for motivating and recruiting youngsters.
He further planned to recruit 50 Mujahideen in every District by 2025 to fight for toppling the democratically elected Government and establishing Islamic rule in India; that the module was in the process of procuring chemicals and making explosives. It was alleged that accused No.2, who hails from Mumbai was a key member of several ISIS linked Telegram group and channels and was one of the administrators of a radical Telegram group.
Accused No.3, who hails from Jamshedpur was the main operator of the group in Jamshedpur; he had also floated a local offline group with his associates; they were also in the process of procuring explosive materials, pistols and grenades for conducting violent terror attacks in various States like Karnataka in India.
It was alleged that he had also pledged funds for radicalisation and committing these attacks; these radicalised persons were disseminating ISIS propagandas with an aim to recruit and incite young persons to commit violent jihad for the establishment of Sharia rule in India.
The NIA argued that at the time of arrest, the respondents were duly informed of the grounds of their arrest–including the alleged conspiracy orchestrated by them in collusion with other co-accused persons against Government of India, in the presence of two independent witnesses. The accused were placed under arrest on 18.12.2023 for the alleged offences and they were intimated in writing under Section 50 of Cr.P.C., about the same.
The NIA contended that the accused were also informed in writing that they would be produced before the jurisdictional Court on 19.12.2023 and the matter regarding their arrest had been intimated to their family members by mentioning the name and the relation of family members and that if they desire, they can appoint a legal counsel to represent them before the NIA Special Court. It argued that while giving arrest intimation to the accused, their family members were intimated about the grounds of arrest, and the main ground of their arrest i.e. conspiracy hatched by them were also highlighted in the written intimation under Section 50 Cr.P.C.
The court held that the accused are not entitled to bail and quashed the Special Court's order.
Case title: NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v/s MD. SHAHBAZ @ ZULFIKAR @GUDDU and batch
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1023, 858, 927 & 932 OF 2025