The bail requests of three individuals who were detained in connection with the murder of Praveen Nettaru, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker, last year, were denied by the Karnataka High Court.

A panel consisting of Justices HB Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B Katti determined that there was ample compelling evidence against the defendants, indicating their direct participation in the offense. The ruling stated,  “the alleged provocative speeches of the determination of the accused and their Organization to eliminate prominent Hindu leaders at random in retaliation for the killing of one Sri. Masood could only be with an intent to threaten and strike terror in one particular section of the people in India. As such, it would be a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAP [Unlawful Activities (Prevention)] Act.”

In April of this year, the Special NIA Court had previously rejected the bail requests of the three individuals, namely Ismail Shafi K, K Mahammad Iqbal, and Shaheed M, who are affiliated with the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI).

Two out of the three accused individuals had argued that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had unjustly accused them of delivering inflammatory speeches during the funeral of a teenager named Masood, where they allegedly threatened to seek revenge for his death by targeting prominent Hindu community leaders. The third appellant was accused of creating a plan or sketch detailing the intended attack on the victim.

The court ruled that it is not necessary for the three accused individuals to have been physically present during the attack on Nettaru to be considered part of a conspiracy. In other words, the court emphasized that overt actions are not a requirement for conspiracy charges to apply.

The court took into account that all three individuals were reported to have participated in a meeting where they discussed a plan to kill Nettaru as part of the conspiracy case.

The court observed that the accusation of delivering provocative speeches was supported by the statements of four protected witnesses. Additionally, it was mentioned that the investigating officer had gathered call records between the mobile phones of the accused to demonstrate their involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also noted that it is not a requirement for a terrorist act to be carried out by an organization, as Section 15, which defines the term 'terrorist act,' uses the word "whoever" and refers to "any person" committing such an act. This means that an individual's actions can be considered a terrorist act, regardless of organizational involvement.

The judgment stated that the conspiracy in which the current appellants were involved was prima facie established to involve advocating, assisting, and facilitating the execution of a terrorist act. This act was also considered preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, and as such, it falls under the provisions of Section 18 of the UAP (Unlawful Activities Prevention) Act, making it punishable under that law.

Additionally, the evidence presented to the court "prima facie" demonstrated that each of the defendants had a "definite, active, and significant role in the commission" of the murder.

The Court denied the bail petitions after determining that the prosecution's documents gave good reasons to believe that the charges against the three defendants were prima facie true.

Case: Ismail Shafi K v. State By National Investigation Agency, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 2023 (21(NIA)).