Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T. set aside the Special Court’s orders granting bail to seven accused and directed that they be taken back into custody, while also asking for an expedited trial. The appeals were filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging bail granted to the accused alleged to be part of the Ballari ISIS module. The agency claims they were involved in propagating ISIS ideology and in recruiting and radicalising vulnerable youth to facilitate terrorist acts in India, attracting charges under the UAPA. The Bench held that the objection regarding non-supply of written grounds of arrest was raised after an inordinate delay and, in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, could not sustain the grant of bail.

Also Read: Supreme Court Bars High Courts From Entertaining Tribunal Appointment, Tenure And Service Pleas Where Issues Are Pending Before It

The prosecution case arose from information suggesting an ISIS-linked network operating through Telegram groups and local offline groups, with alleged dissemination of ISIS propaganda and efforts to recruit and radicalise youth for violent attacks in India. The record also refers to allegations of procuring explosive material and other weapons for attacks across States.

Based on the gravity and national security implications, the investigation was taken up by the National Investigation Agency pursuant to a Central Government direction, and the matter was registered for offences including criminal conspiracy under the IPC and alleged UAPA offences. The investigating officer secured the accused, they were remanded to judicial custody, and a charge sheet was filed.

The accused moved bail applications under Section 439 CrPC. The Special Court granted bail on the view that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to them. In the appeals, the NIA contended that the bail orders were contrary to the material on record and that, at the time of arrest, the accused were informed of the grounds of arrest in the presence of two independent witnesses. It further stated that they were given written arrest intimation under Section 50 CrPC, including information about proposed production before the jurisdictional court, intimation to family members, and the option to appoint counsel.

The Court observed, “there is a significant difference in the phrase 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'.” It stated that “The 'reasons for arrest' as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters… These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of crime, whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would require containing all such details in the hand of the Investigating Officer, which necessitated the arrest of the accused.”

Referring to Article 22(1), the Court recorded that “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.” It further noted that Section 50 Cr.P.C. reiterates this requirement by casting a duty upon the police officer to communicate full particulars of the offence or other grounds for arrest.

While discussing precedents, the Court recorded that in Prabir’s case, the Apex Court observed that “any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.”

Referring to Supreme Court decisions, including Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the court noted : "The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Mihir's case (supra) observed that, in exceptional circumstances such as offences against body or property committed in flagrante delicto, where informing the grounds of arrest in writing on arrest is rendered impractical, it shall be sufficient for the police officer or other person making the arrest to orally convey the same to the person at the time of arrest. Later, a written copy of grounds of arrest must be supplied to the arrested person within a reasonable time and in no event later than two hours prior to production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings. Infact, the date of decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is 06.11.2025 and admittedly, the appellants herein had been arrested much earlier i.e. on 18.12.2023 and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to raise any grievance. The grievance about the alleged procedural lapse has been raised very belatedly i.e. after more than almost one year of the arrest and there is no whisper of any prejudice being caused to the appellants, who were represented by counsel from day one".

It then relied on the Supreme Court’s order in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan observing: "Though the grounds of arrest is not in writing, the same is informed orally to the accused and their relatives and two independent witnesses have acknowledged the same and there is a delay in urging the said ground. As the accused have failed to secure bail even after making all efforts, earlier, a new ground is raised that they were not informed in writing about the grounds of arrest and not made out any demonstrable prejudice caused to defend the same and only after thought invoked the ground when unsuccessful earlier. Considering the detailed analysis made above, there is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that the copy of remand application in the purported exercise of grounds of arrest in writing was provided to the respondents/accused persons before passing of the order of remand and applied judicious mind. Thus it will not vitiate the arrest and subsequent remand of the respondents/accused.”

On the issue of prejudice, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that “mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice by denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend themselves.”

The Bench recorded that the grievance was raised belatedly and that “there is no whisper of any prejudice being caused to the appellants.” It concluded that “the copy of remand application in the purported exercise of grounds of arrest in writing was provided… before passing of the order of remand and applied judicious mind.”

Also Read: Arrest Prior To Supreme Court’s ‘Pankaj Bansal’ Judgment Not Illegal For Want Of Written Grounds; Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To NIA Terror Accused, Directs Expedited Trial

The Court directed that “Crl.A.No.1023/2025, Crl.A.No.858/2025, Crl.A.No.927/2025 and Crl.A.No.932/2025 filed by the appellant/National Investigation Agency(NIA) are allowed.  The impugned orders dated 08.04.2025, 11.03.2025 and 14.03.2025… is set-aside and the bail granted to the respondents/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is hereby cancelled. The concerned authorities are directed to take accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 into custody.”

“The Special Court is directed to conduct the trial expeditiously and pass the judgment on merits. It is made clear that the observations made during the course of this order are strictly confined to the issuance of bail to the respondents/accused and the same shall not influence the Special Court while deciding the matters on merits.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Sachin C., Advocate for Sri Prasanna Kumar P., Special Public Prosecutor

For the Respondents: Sri Chandrashekar R.P., Advocate; Sri Murthy Dayanand Nayak, Senior Counsel; Sri Rahamathulla Kothwal, Advocate

Case Title: National Investigation Agency v. Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu & Others (Connected Criminal Appeals)

Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos.1023/2025, 858/2025, 927/2025, 932/2025

Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T