Under Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act, bail must be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations of terrorist activity are prima facie true, which is substantiated here by FSL reports, evidence of reconnaissance, and cryptocurrency-based funding.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

This appeal is filed challenging the order of rejection of bail petition dated 20.05.2025 passed in Special Case No. 706/2023 on the file of XLIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial NIA cases) CCH-50 at Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 121A, 427 and 435 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'the UAP Act of 1967') and Section 2 of the Karnataka State Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 .

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The main allegation against the present appellant/accused No.4 is set out in paragraph 19 of the order of the Trial Court that he is a member of the proscribed terrorist organization, Islamic State and was radicalized and recruited by accused No.2 who is his college mate at PA College of Engineering, Mangaluru. As part of a larger conspiracy, accused No.4 allegedly participated in reconnaissance and arson activities in Mangaluru with an intention to wage war against the Government of India. He is 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 No.2. Additionally, he allegedly purchased a Honda Activa for use in these activities, funded by money received through an online handler named “Colonel”. The Investigating Officer has gathered both oral and documentary evidence to support these claims.

4. This accused was arrested on 05.01.2023. At the time of arrest, the personal search was conducted and oneblack Redmi Note 5 Pro mobile phone with an Airtel SIM card and a micro SD card was seized from accused No.4 and his voluntary statement was also recorded wherein accused No.4 disclosed that he was a college mate of accused No.2 – Maaz Muneer Ahmed at P A College, Mangaluru. He stated that accused No.2 radicalised and recruited him to further the activities of the proscribed terrorist organisation, Islamic State. Accused No.2 allegedly sent him videos/PDFs related to ISIS, the beheading of kafirs, jihad, bayans of radicalised maullana and videos demonstrating arson and the use of Molotov cocktails (petrol bombs). He also stated that he received crypto-currency into his Zebpay account from online handlers as well as into the crypto account of his college friend - Shadab. Furthermore, he stated that he along with accused No.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. Thus, the sum and substance of allegation against this appellant is that he has involved in the terrorist activities along with accused No.2 who is his college mate.

5. The Trial Court, having considered the material available on record, in paragraphs 21 to 29 noted the involvement of this appellant in the said activities and role played by him and the Trial Court also taken note of the fact that this appellant even engaged in crypto-currency activities which is observed in paragraph 38 and in paragraphs 50 and 53, the Trial Court relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court and rejected the bail petition.

6. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an er