The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a plea filed by a 22-year-old petitioner seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly sending emails threatening bomb blasts at the Kempegowda International Airport and several prominent shopping malls in Bengaluru. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, ruled that the petitioner’s claim regarding a non-functional internet connection at the time of the alleged incident constitutes a factual dispute that must be tested during a full-fledged criminal trial, rather than addressed through the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction .

The petitioner, Abhay Shee, had moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , attempting to strike down the chargesheet filed in C.C. No. 41074/2026. He stood accused of offenses under Section 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , which pertains to criminal intimidation through anonymous communication, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 , which deals with cheating by personation using a computer resource.

Allegations and the Digital Trail The prosecution’s case traces back to November 30, 2025 , when the office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City , received ominous emails claiming to originate from the proscribed terrorist organization, Jaish-e-Mohammed . These messages explicitly identified Kempegowda International Airport, Orion Mall, Lulu Mall, Forum South Mall, and Mantri Square Mall as targets for imminent bomb blasts. Beyond the terror-inducing content, the messages included a mobile number and a demand for payment, which the authorities treated as a serious threat to public order and infrastructure.

During the investigation, the Cyber Crime Police Station discovered that the threatening messages were sent from an email account linked to the petitioner. The investigating agency collected evidence suggesting that the accused had systematically created multiple electronic identities and assumed the personas of others to mask the origin of these threats. While the police initially invoked Section 66F of the Information Technology Act regarding cyber terrorism , that specific charge was omitted from the final charge sheet. However, the core allegations regarding the intentional dissemination of terror-themed threats remained central to the prosecution.

Judicial Rejection of Preliminary Quashment Counsel for the petitioner argued that on the specific date and time of the alleged incident, the petitioner's home internet connection was entirely inactive, rendering it impossible for him to have authored and transmitted the messages. He presented documents to support his claim that the internet facility was disabled. He contended that if the means of communication were unavailable, the prosecution's entire narrative collapsed.

Justice Nagaprasanna, however, found this argument inadequate for invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings. In his order, the judge noted that an electronic mail account is not tied to a single, static point of access. "An electronic mail account is not inextricably tied to a particular computer, a particular internet connection or a particular geographical location," the court observed. Access to digital accounts can be secured through various devices, public networks, or mobile hotspots, making the simple claim of a disconnected home router insufficient to disprove involvement.

The Court emphasized that the evidentiary value of the documents regarding the internet status was a matter for the trial court . "The complaint lodged by the petitioner with his Internet Service Provider may constitute a circumstance available to him in defence; it cannot, without more, be elevated into conclusive proof that the alleged communication could not have originated from him," the court held. By refusing to intervene at this preliminary stage, the Court underscored that its powers under Section 482 are meant to prevent the abuse of the process of law, not to act as a venue for conducting a " mini-trial " based on disputed documentary evidence.

Public Safety and the Burden of Proof The legal discourse in this case highlights a significant intersection between technological complexity and the mandate of public safety. The Court observed that the nature of the alleged threat—invoking a known terrorist organization and targeting high-traffic public establishments—could not be minimized as an interpersonal dispute. "A threat of this nature compels the State to act, for the law enforcement machinery cannot afford the luxury of presuming that a threat to public safety is a hoax," the order stated.

Invoking the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Justice Nagaprasanna reaffirmed that when a chargesheet has been filed, the High Court is generally prohibited from re-appreciating evidence or drawing inferences that belong within the domain of the trial court . The judgment reinforces the principle that where there are triable issues—such as the digital trail left by the accused, the authentication of IP addresses, and the reconciliation of technical claims—the accused must answer these charges in a formal trial.

The petitioner now faces the prospect of full trial proceedings before the 45th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bengaluru. The Court’s rejection of the petition serves as a firm reminder that while the liberty of the individual is paramount, it cannot be weaponized to suppress the state’s obligation to investigate and prosecute acts that jeopardize public peace. The case will now move forward to the evidentiary stage, where the claims regarding technical connectivity will be evaluated alongside the digital forensic data collected by the prosecution. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining a rigorous stance against activities that hide behind electronic anonymity to sow terror and instability in urban centers.