Anees Shakil Ahmed Ansari, a computer engineer residing in Kurla, was denied bail by the Bombay High Court. Ansari had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his involvement in a conspiracy to execute a "lone wolf" attack on the American School of Bombay in the Bandra Kurla Complex.

The division bench, comprising Justice Prakash D Naik and Justice NR Borkar, rejected the plea of 33-year-old Ansari. He had sought a suspension of sentence and bail while his appeal against the conviction was pending. The rejection was primarily based on the substantial evidence presented against him.

Ansari, influenced by ISIS ideology, was arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) on October 18, 2014, for alleged involvement in cyber terrorism. Investigations revealed that during his employment at a private firm in SEEPZ, he created fictitious social media and mail accounts and maintained contact with several individuals sharing similar ideologies.

ATS officials retrieved Ansari’s social media communications, including discussions with Omar Elhajj, a U.S. resident. The police asserted that the computer engineer had continuous contact with Elhajj for five consecutive days, engaging in conversations about bomb-making methods. Moreover, Ansari allegedly attempted to persuade Elhajj to join him in orchestrating an attack on the school.

The police said he had also shared several articles related to ISIS theories and ideology with Elhajj. During the probe, the IP address of Elhajj was traced to a location in the US, but the agency could not obtain any further information about him.

On October 21, 2022, the Sessions Court found Ansari guilty of cyber terrorism under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The conviction was primarily based on the chats retrieved from his computer. As a result, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Last year, Ansari contested his conviction in the high court. Recently, he sought bail while his appeal was pending, arguing that he had already spent over nine years in prison. He claimed that the cyberterrorism charge was based on insufficient evidence, asserting that there was no substantiation supporting his conviction in this regard.

His counsel argued that cyber terrorism involves using computer network tools to disrupt critical national infrastructures like energy, transportation, and government operations. However, they contended that there was insufficient evidence to meet the criteria for the offense as defined under section 66F.

Despite the argument presented, the bench remained unconvinced. The court dismissed the plea for bail, asserting that substantial evidence supporting the conviction was present in the records against the defendant.