- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.254/2024 (21(NIA)) BETWEEN: MR.MOHAMMED SALIN S/O KHAZA MOHIDDIN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT ASURAN EAST STREET MELAPALYAM, TIRUNELVELI TAMILNADU …APPELLANT (BY SRI SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION CCB, BENGALURU REP. BY SPL. PP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2023 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.381/2015 C/W S.C.No.1347/2016 ON THE FILE OF VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 121, 121A, 123, 201, 307, 435, 332 OF IPC, SECTIONS 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 AND 20 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967, SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 OF THE EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 AND SECTION 4 OF PREVENTION OF DAMAGE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES) CCH-50 AT BENGALURU. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging dismissal of his bail application, accused No.14 in S.C.No.381/2015 & S.C.No.1347/2016 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA Cases) (CCH-50), Bengaluru has preferred this appeal. 2. Appellant and 22 others are being tried in S.C.No.381/2015 & S.C.No.1347/2016 on the charge that the accused motivated by extreme religious ideologies conspired to wage war against India and indulged in Jihadi activities. In execution of such conspiracy and to take revenge against ruling BJP Government in Karnataka for the arrest of Abdul Nasar Madani, they decided to blast bombs near BJP office in Bengaluru, Karnataka. In execution of such conspiracy, they planted bombs near BJP office, Malleswaram, Bengaluru. Due - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 to explosion of those bombs, police vehicles, private vehicles were extensively damaged, police personnel and some public were also injured. 3. Appellant’s first application for bail was rejected by the Trial Court. He filed successive bail application on the ground of delay in trial. The same was opposed by the prosecution on merits as well as denying the delay on its part in conducting the trial. 4. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned order has rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that there are no changed circumstances to reconsider the prayer for bail in a successive application. So far as the delay, the trial Court held that the accused themselves are guilty of causing such delay. 5. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned Counsel for appellant: 6. Absolutely there is no material to show the involvement of the appellant in the crime. He is implicated in the case only based on the confessional statement of the co- accused. Appellant is languishing in jail since 2013. There are - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 273 charge sheet witnesses and still large number of witnesses have to be examined. The trial is getting delayed. If ultimately, the appellant is acquitted, his fundamental right to life and liberty gets seriously affected. 7. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments: (i) SK.Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P.1 (ii) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra2 Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for respondent: 8. There is sufficient material to show that appellant was supplier of the explosives to accused No.3/the key accused and he was also part of the crime of bomb blast. Considering the merits, his first bail application was rejected. He is involved in many other cases in Tamil Nadu. Out of them particulars of only four could be secured. Even amongst those four, two cases involving the offences under the Arms Act, 1959 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1968 (for short ‘UAP Act’) are pending for trial. He is involved in bomb blast case pending before the Chennai Court. Hence, he is not entitled to seek bail 1 (2024) 8 SCC 293 2 2024 SCC Online SC 1693 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 on merits as there are no grounds for reconsideration. So far as delay in trial, the trial has commenced in April 2022. So far 78 witnesses are examined, 125 witnesses are given up by the prosecution and the prosecution is going to give up another 40 witnesses. Only 60 witnesses are likely to be examined. The trial is going on day-to-day basis. Accused No.19 was absconding since 1995 and was apprehended belatedly. Accused themselves are delaying the proceedings. The judgments relied on by learned Counsel for appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no merit in the appeal, hence the same be dismissed. 9. On considering the submissions of both side and on examination of the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration under the facts and circumstances of the case is “whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the bail application of the appellant?” Analysis 10. Appellant and 22 other accused are being prosecuted in S.C.No.381/2015 & S.C.No.1347/2016 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, 120B, 123, 307, 332, 435 and 201 of IPC, Sections 3, 4, 5 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of UAP Act. 11. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) That accused No.16 is an active member of banned Islamic organization called Al-Umma. As revenge for demolition of Babri Masjid, he indulged in terrorist activities in India in the name of Jihad and intended to make India, Islamic country (Dar-ul-Islam). In 1988, he and his aides blasted bombs in Coimbatore to kill BJP leader Sri L.K.Advani, leading to loss of lives of hundreds of people and accused No.16 started Institution called Charitable Trust of Minorities (‘CTM’ for short) to lend financial assistance to jailed Muslim accused in terrorist cases. He used to raise funds to help them. (ii) Accused No.3 was in charge of Tirunelveli and Coimbatore Branches of CTM and he used to conduct conspiracy meeting. He had grudge against Karnataka BJP Government on the ground that they are responsible for arrest of Abdul Nasar Madani, an accused of Coimbatore Bomb blast case and for not granting bail to him. Under the impression that, if BJP Government comes to power they might drive the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 Muslims away and not lend any help for release of Muslim youth who are in jail, he decided to wage jihad/war against Karnataka Government. For that purpose he mobilised the other accused to carry out jihadi activities. (iii) Appellant and accused Nos.2, 3, 5 to 13, 16 and 18 hatched criminal conspiracy for conducting various blasts and wage war against the Government. In furtherance of such conspiracy and to take revenge against the ruling BJP Government in Karnataka, accused secured explosive materials. In execution of such conspiracy, they fixed time bomb in motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-R-3739 and parked the same near BJP Office. Said bomb exploded leading to extensive damage to KSRP van bearing Registration No.KA-01-G-8473. In the blast, 12 KSRP police personnel, 6 civilians sustained injuries and many vehicles i.e. two wheelers and four wheelers parked near the said place were damaged. They motivated other accused and involved them in Jihadi activities to wage war against India and damage economic fabric of India. 12. Specific role assigned to appellant is that he participated in conspiracy meetings where they planned for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 bomb blasts near BJP Office and for that purpose the appellant collected 20 to 30 KGs of Explosives Gel Ammonium Nitrate and electric detonators from accused No.16 and handed over the same to accused No.3. Using such explosives, bombs were prepared. In execution of their conspiracy, accused Nos.8 and 9 planted bombs in motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-R- 3739 and left the same near BJP Office which led to the blast, damaging the properties and causing injuries to the police personnel and other people. 13. Admittedly, the first bail application of the appellant has been rejected by the trial Court on 27.09.2018 considering the merits. He has not challenged the said order. Therefore, there is no scope again to argue on the merits of the matter. It was contended that the appellant is in custody for more than 12 years and thereby he has already served the sentence of more than half of the period of sentence prescribed for the offence alleged against him, hence he is entitled for bail. 14. Out of the offences alleged against the appellant, the offence under Section 121 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and fine. Therefore the trial Court has rightly rejected the contention that appellant has already - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 undergone detention for more than half of the prescribed period of sentence. 15. Apart from such prima facie case, antecedents of accused also become relevant in deciding his entitlement for bail. Prosecution contends that appellant is involved in multiple cases. But, presently, the particulars of only four cases are available which are as follows: Sl. No. Name of Police Station Crime No. Sections Invoked Case Status 1 Tirunelveli CB CID 01/2013 153A, 109, 120B, r/w 5 of IES Act 1908 & 18 U.A.P.Act 1967 Pending Trial 2 Achampudur 302/2008 5(a) of E.S Act and 294(b), 353, 307, 506(ii), 120B IPC and 25(1)(a) of Arms Act Pending Trial 3 Tirunelveli City Perumalpuram 1236/201 3 147, 148, 336, 324 IPC and 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, & 9 (b) Explosive Substance Act Acquitted on 19.01.2024 in SC No.766/2017 4 Kanyakumari District Nesamani Nagar 149/2013 294(b), 307 IPC and 147, 148, 341, 342, 307, 153A, 120B r/w 34 IPC Acquitted on 16.05.2019 in SC No.163/2014 16. The above statistics show some of the antecedents of appellant. As the acquittal judgments in the cases shown at Sl.Nos.3 and 4 of the above table are not placed before this Court, it is not clear whether they were honourable acquittal or the acquittals extending benefit of doubt. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 17. Prosecution’s contention that some delay was caused in recording plea of accused Nos.8, 9, 10 due to their refusal to answer the charge is not disputed. The particulars of trial dates shown in para 5 of the statement of objections are also not disputed. That shows that hearing commenced in the year 2015 itself and the evidence commenced in 2022. Out of 273 charge sheet witnesses, 78 witnesses said to have been examined and 125 witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. 18. Learned SPP-II submitted that out of the remaining witnesses, another 40 witnesses are going to be given up and only 60 witnesses are likely to be examined. It was submitted that most of them are official witnesses. Thus more than half of the trial is over. 19. In the judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the appellant, it was held that if the accused was incarcerated without trial, Section 43D of the UAP Act does not restrict the power of the constitutional Court to grant bail. Absolutely, there cannot be any dispute with the said proposition of law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 20. In para 18 of the judgment in SK Javed Iqbal’s case referred to supra, it was held that accused were in custody for more than 9 years and only two witnesses were examined. In that case despite query of the Court, the State Government was not able to apprise the Court how many witnesses the prosecution intends to examine and number of witnesses examined as on that date. Reading of the judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh’s case referred to supra shows that in the said case though the accused were in custody for more than four years, even the charges were not framed. Since in the case on hand there is substantial progress in the trial, the aforesaid judgments cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the present case. 21. As the findings on the first application on merit are not questioned by the appellant and the accused themselves have not cooperated for the trial, judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the appellant do not advance the case of the appellant. 22. The records show that the appellant is involved in other similar cases of using explosives. Having regard to his antecedents and other material on record, it cannot be said - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51825-DB CRL.A No.254/2024 that trial Court has committed any illegality or infirmity in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1