The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against Abhay Shee in a case involving alleged bomb-threat emails targeting Bengaluru’s Kempegowda International Airport and several shopping malls. Justice M. Nagaprasanna rejected the petition, holding that the accused’s claim that his internet connection was not working on the relevant date could not, by itself, justify terminating the prosecution.
Background
According to the judgment, an email was allegedly sent to the Bengaluru City Commissioner of Police on November 30, 2025, threatening bomb blasts at several public locations. The message purportedly invoked the name of Jaish-e-Mohammed and included a demand for payment to prevent the threatened attacks.
The police initially registered a case under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with cyber terrorism. However, the charge sheet was subsequently filed under Section 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), concerning criminal intimidation through anonymous communications, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, concerning cheating by personation using a computer resource.
Shee approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that his internet connection had stopped functioning on the date of the alleged incident.
The petitioner contended that the alleged emails could not have been transmitted through his computer because his internet service was unavailable. The State opposed the plea, arguing that the question required examination of the evidence collected during the investigation.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that an email account could be accessed through different devices and networks. The alleged failure of one internet connection, therefore, did not conclusively establish that the communication could not have originated from the petitioner.
The Court observed:
“An electronic mail account is not inextricably tied to a particular computer, a particular internet connection or a particular geographical location. Access to an electronic mail account may be secured through different devices, networks and modes of connectivity.”
The judgment also emphasised the seriousness of the allegations, noting that threats against public establishments could trigger fear and require an urgent response from law enforcement authorities.
The Court further remarked:
“A threat transmitted through a keyboard may occasion consequences as real as one delivered in person.”
It held that questions concerning the authorship of the emails, their transmission and the evidence linking them to the petitioner required examination before the competent criminal court. The High Court could not conduct a mini-trial while considering a petition to quash proceedings.
Finding no merit in the petition, the Karnataka High Court rejected Abhay Shee’s plea to quash the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the disputed question concerning internet connectivity must be examined at the appropriate stage of the criminal case.
The Court also disposed of I.A. No. 1 of 2026.
Case Details
- Case Title: Abhay Shee v. State of Karnataka & Another
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 24177 of 2026 (GM-RES)
- Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
- Decision Date: September 1, 2026
