Karnataka High Court Refuses To Reduce Sentence Of Terror Convicts Who Pleaded Guilty, Cites Gravity Of Waging War Against India
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed the appeal of two men convicted under UAPA seeking reduction of their sentence from 7 years to 5 years, holding that the gravity of the offences committed by them warranted no leniency from the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335]The Division bench of Justice H.P Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod noted in the order that the reduction of sentence cannot...
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed the appeal of two men convicted under UAPA seeking reduction of their sentence from 7 years to 5 years, holding that the gravity of the offences committed by them warranted no leniency from the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335]
The Division bench of Justice H.P Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod noted in the order that the reduction of sentence cannot be granted as a matter of right to the terror convicts.
“…the Trial Court considering the gravity of the offence, imposed sentence of 7 years proportionate to the crime committed by the appellants and the appellants also as a matter of right cannot claim to impose minimum sentence of only 5 years and it is the discretion of the Court to impose the same, even though the accused persons have pleaded guilty without trial….”
For context, the appellants were convicted by the Bengaluru Special Court for NIA Cases for offences under Sections 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities), 18 (Punishment for Conspiracy), 38 (Offence Relating to Membership of a Terrorist Organization), 39 (Offence Relating to Support Given to a Terrorist Organization) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A, 153-B of IPC, and had been imprisoned for the past 4 years.
The High Court had earlier called for a report from the jail authorities about the conduct of the appellants during incarceration as well as a report from their probation officer about their antecedents.
The court pointed out that the probation officer's report was based on statements made by the accused themselves alone with no individual reports furnished. Similarly, the sentencing details were not mentioned clearly in the Jail Superintendent's report, with no opinions expressed about whether the convicted had reformed or shown remorse.
The court took note of the findings of the trial court that the convicted were active on various Telegram groups, and in constant touch with foreign terror groups. According to the prosecution version which was affirmed by the trial court, the accused were planning to enter Afghanistan through the route of Kashmirin order to Join Al-Qaeda. The allegations which stood substantiated also included the accused radicalising and recruiting youth for banned organisations such as Al Qaeda and Indian Mujaheddin.
The trial court had also found the appellants were planning to procure arms for waging war against India. The accused had expressed their readiness to sacrifice their lives for terrorist organisations, the court noted.
The Division Bench said:
“…the Court has to take note of very ingredients of the offences which have been invoked against them and the material collected during custodial investigation of accused Nos.1 and 2 is nothing but involving in the activities to wage war against the very Country in which they have born and living… Counsel appearing for the appellants relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.2142/2025 dated 20.01.2026, wherein this Court in mob fury case, reduced the sentence from 7 years to 6 years. But, here is a case where accused persons were planning to wage war against the Country. Hence, the said judgment will not come to the aid of the appellants to reduce the sentence from 7 years to 5 years”, the court opined.
Accordingly, the criminal appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Title: Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md Jubal @ Md Jubab v. NIA & Ors.
Case No: CRL.A No.277/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335