Karnataka High Court Refuses to Quash Bomb Threat Case Against Man

The Karnataka High Court, in India, recently declined to quash criminal proceedings against a 22-year-old man accused of sending bomb threats to Kempegowda International Airport and several shopping malls in Bengaluru, as reported by Bar and Bench.

Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the criminal case against Abhay Shee, who was booked by the Bengaluru Cyber Crime Police. Shee is alleged to have impersonated another person and invoked the banned terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed in emails threatening bomb blasts at various Bengaluru locations, including Orion Mall, Lulu Mall, Forum South Mall, and Mantri Square Mall, on November 30, 2025. The emails reportedly threatened blasts from 7 PM onwards and included a mobile number seeking payment to avert the attacks. The Court rejected the accused's claim that his internet connection was not working on the date of the alleged incident as a sufficient ground to quash the case before trial, observing that such a proposition in the realm of electronic communications was "far too fragile to sustain the weight of quashment."

This ruling carries significant legal weight, reinforcing the judiciary's stance against the premature quashing of criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving serious threats and electronic evidence. For law enforcement, it validates their approach in pursuing such cases to trial, indicating that preliminary technical alibis, without further substantiation, will not easily derail investigations into cybercrimes. The decision underscores the importance of a full trial to ascertain facts, particularly when the alleged crime involves public safety and national security implications. It also highlights the evolving nature of evidence in the digital age and the courts' adaptation to it.

The legal context for this case involves charges under Section 351(4) (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66D (cheating by personation using a computer resource or communication device) of the Information Technology Act. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a new criminal code in India, replacing parts of the Indian Penal Code, while the Information Technology Act specifically addresses cybercrimes. The Karnataka High Court, as part of the Indian judicial hierarchy, exercises its power to quash proceedings, typically under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or equivalent provisions in the new codes), which allows it to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. However, this power is exercised sparingly, particularly when factual disputes necessitate a trial. Key parties involved include the Karnataka High Court (Justice M Nagaprasanna), the accused Abhay Shee, the State of Karnataka, and the Bengaluru Cyber Crime Police.

Practitioners representing clients accused of cybercrimes, especially those involving threats or impersonation, should understand that High Courts are unlikely to quash proceedings based on preliminary technical defenses like internet connectivity issues. A robust defense will require more substantial evidence to counter the prosecution's case at trial, focusing on the merits rather than procedural technicalities at an early stage. Businesses and public institutions, particularly those managing critical infrastructure like airports and large commercial spaces, should continue to implement and regularly review their threat response protocols, as the legal system is clearly equipped and committed to pursuing such threats to their logical conclusion.