A 22-year-old individual now faces criminal prosecution after the Karnataka High Court declined to dismiss charges against him for allegedly dispatching a terror-related email to the Bengaluru Police Commissioner. According to court documents, the message purportedly originated from the banned militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed and contained warnings of coordinated bombings targeting the Kempegowda International Airport alongside multiple high-profile shopping centers.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case as a single-judge panel, rejected arguments that the threat lacked genuine intent because it was issued under a fabricated identity. The court emphasized that a false threat of terrorism is not rendered innocuous merely because the person issuing it never intended to execute the threatened act. The ruling showed that such communications—even when fraudulent—demand legal consequences due to their potential to disrupt public safety and divert law enforcement resources.
Case Background and Legal Proceedings
The accused had allegedly created multiple fake email IDs in the name of another person called Mohit Kumar to intentionally frame him. By invoking Jaish-e-Mohammed’s name and triggering an emergency response, the court noted the defendant’s actions had serious consequences. The email, received by police on November 30, 2025, stated: “This is a warning from the Jaish-e-Mohammed White collar terror team. We targeted Kempegowda International Airport Bengaluru, Orion mall, Lulu Mall, Forum South mall, Mantri Square Mall… for bomb blast at 7pm onwards.” It included a purported sender name and contact number, instructing authorities to call if they wished to prevent the alleged attacks.
Charges and Defense Strategy
Initial police action resulted in an FIR under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act (Cyber Terrorism). However, during the investigation, authorities discovered the accused had created multiple fake email accounts in Mohit Kumar’s name to falsely incriminate him. The final charge sheet cited Section 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for anonymous intimidation and Section 66D of the IT Act for identity fraud, though the cyber terrorism charge was later withdrawn. The charge sheet also noted that the accused did not have the actual intention to execute a terrorist act, his intent was to implicate Mohit Kumar in a criminal case.
The petitioner had argued before the High Court that the very foundation of the prosecution was shaky, and that the petitioner’s internet connection was defunct on the date of the incident. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Justice Nagaprasanna ruled that courts cannot evaluate disputed factual claims-such as the status of an internet link-without a full trial. The bench stressed that 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.
Judicial Reasoning
The Court, after hearing both sides, further clarified that an email account is not intertwined specifically with a particular computer, internet connection, or geographical location, since access could be very well secured through different devices and networks. The gravity of such conduct lies not merely in the possibility of the threatened event materialising, but also in the fear that the threat is capable of generating, the disruption it may occasion and the diversion of public resources that its verification inevitably entails.
The law cannot permit the electronic medium to become a convenient cloak behind which an individual may, with impunity, assume another’s identity, issue threats of catastrophic violence and thereafter seek immunity from prosecution on the strength of a disputed assertion concerning internet connectivity. A threat transmitted through a keyboard may occasion consequences as real as one delivered in person.