Karnataka HC refuses to quash case against man accused of sending bomb threats to Bengaluru airport, malls

The Karnataka High Court recently declined to quash criminal proceedings against a 22-year-old man accused of sending emails with threats of bomb blasts at Kempegowda International Airport and several shopping malls in Bengaluru [Abhay Shee v. State of Karnataka].

The accused youth is alleged to have impersonated another person and invoked the name of the banned terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed in the bomb threat emails.

The Court held that the accused man's claim that his internet connection was not working on the date of the alleged incident could not, by itself, justify quashing the criminal case before trial.

“Such a proposition, in the realm of electronic communications, is far too fragile to sustain the weight of quashment," the Court observed.

The case arose from an email allegedly sent to the Bengaluru City Police Commissioner's office on November 30, 2025, threatening explosions at the airport and malls, including Orion Mall, Lulu Mall, Forum South Mall and Mantri Square Mall. The email allegedly threatened blasts from 7 PM onwards and included a mobile number seeking payment to avert the attacks.

A man named Abhay Shee was booked in the case by the Bengaluru Cyber Crime Police. He was charged with the criminal offences of 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, 2000.

The police had initially invoked Section 66F (cyber terrorism) of the Information Technology Act as well. However, the investigating officer did not retain this charge in the final charge sheet.

The prosecution alleged that the accused had created multiple email accounts using another person's identity particulars to send the threatening communication.

The accused man eventually filed a plea before the High Court to quash the case against him.

He argued that his internet connection was not working on the date of the incident, making it improbable that he could have sent the bomb threat email. The State countered that such claims have to be tested during trial.

The High Court found merit in the State's argument and dismissed the accused man's plea.

The Court observed that email accounts from which the bomb threats were sent were not confined to a particular computer, internet connection or geographical location.

“The alleged failure of one internet connection, therefore, does not by itself establish the impossibility of transmitting an electronic communication through another available means,” the Court said.

It added that a complaint lodged by the accused with his internet service provider could support the accused's defence, but could not conclusively establish that he was incapable of sending the emails.

The Court also underscored the seriousness of false bomb threats, noting that their consequences extended beyond whether the threatened attack was actually intended to be carried out.

“A false threat of terrorism is not rendered innocuous merely because the person issuing it never intended to execute the threatened act," the Court observed.

It pointed out that such threats could generate public fear, disrupt normal activities and divert police and other public resources.

“A threat transmitted through a keyboard may occasion consequences as real as one delivered in person,” the Court added.

Advocate Uday Shankar M appeared for petitioner and High Court Government Pleader Waheeda M M appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]