L. Narayana Swamy, J.

Case has been registered by Gangammana Gudi Police Station of Yeswanthpura Sub-Division, Bangalore City against this petitioner in Crime No. 218 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 66(F) of Information Technology Act, 2000; under Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code; and under Sections 18, 13, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 14th December, 2014 and is in judicial custody since then. After completion of investigation final report has been filed on 1st June, 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b), 18B, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Now, the case is registered in Special CC No. 272 of 2015 pending on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA cases) at Bangalore.

3. The petitioner is a B.Tech graduate in the field of Electronic Engineering and was working in the ITC Food Division, R & D Centre, Peenya, Bangalore City. He hails from West Bengal and is said to be a pious Sunni set of Islam. On an information received on 12th December, 2014 at around 11.00 a.m., Gangammana Gudi police have registered a case. The information was that a person from Bangalore was the brain behind a twitter handle "@shamiwitness" which was sympathetic to the cause of Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and was working towards motivating and eulogizing the fighters.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, takes the ground that ISIL/ISIS has been banned by Government of India with effect from 16th February, 2015, whereas, the petitioner was arrested for the said offence on 14th December, 2014, that is to say much before the activities of ISIL/ISIS was banned and hence, it cannot be termed as an offence. On this ground he submitted that bail is to be extended to the petitioner. He submitted that the case of the prosecution that the petitioner involved in the offence to wage war against the State, cannot be accepted. Waging war against the State or the society could be attributed against fleet of persons who are working with weapons against the State. Such materials are not available with prosecution. He submitted that the petitioner is a law- abiding citizen and is also an engineering graduate and under these circumstances, he has to be extended the benefit of bail.

5. Further, he submitted that the case of the prosecution that the petitioner successfully masked his identity most of times and tweeted to promote and support the claim of the terrorist organization ISIL/ISIS from January, 2013 until he was exposed by Channel-4 of Britain on 12th December, 2014; he sent thousands of messages, posted pictures, photos and videos glorifying the Islamic Caliphate and implement Sharia by overthrowing legitimate rulers of various countries, particularly the countries of Iraq, Syria and neighbouring countries, has no materials and there is no basis for it.

6. It is alleged by the prosecution that this petitioner has committed offence under Sections 66A, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66E whereas the cyber terrorism is defined under Section 66F and the materials collected on behalf of the prosecution do not satisfy any of the provisions/offences. He submitted that in similar circumstances, in a reported judgment in CDJ 2015 SC 256, the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck Section 66-A off the Information Technology Act in its entirety being violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and not saved under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. He further submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner does not satisfy the cyber terrorism and the petitioner has not used any cyber weapons like radio frequency, electromagnetic bomb or computer viruses, etc. There are no allegations as to the fact that the petitioner has sent viruses and delivered to any computer, or he having hacked into any computer, password protected the information system and then dele