[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr.Ahamed Abdul Cader @ Kaka vs National Investigation Agency on 27 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
CRL.A No.598 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.598 OF 2025 [21(NIA)]
BETWEEN:
MR. AHAMED ABDUL CADER @ KAKA
S/O. MOHAMED JAMLUDEEN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.27/57
8TH 'A' MAIN, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU-560 029.
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.11/10 , MIDDLE STREET
KILAKARAI, RAMANATHPURAM
TAMIL NADU - 623 517.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
ANJALI M NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Location: BRANCH OFFICE, BENGALURU
High Court 3RD FLOOR, BSNL EXCHANGE
of 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR
Karnataka HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 009
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
P. PRASANNA KUMAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SACHIN C., ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
***
-2-
CRL.A No.598 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(4) OF
NIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26-6-2024 PASSED
IN SPECIAL CASE NO.595 OF 2021 BY THE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA
CASES), (CCH-50), BENGALURU, AND FURTHER, BE PLEASED TO
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED NO.5 ON BAIL.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 12-2-2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Sri Chandrashekar R.P., learned counsel for the
appellant-accused No.5, and Sri Sachin C., learned counsel
appearing for Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-National Investigation Agency
(for short, 'NIA'), and perused the material available on record.
2. The appellant-accused No.5 has filed this appeal under
Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008,
to set aside the order dated 26-6-2024 passed by the learned
XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for
trial of NIA cases), (CCH-50), Bengaluru, in Special Case
No.595 of 2021 and prays to enlarge him on bail in
RC-33/2020/NIA/DLI pending in Special Case No.595 of 2021
before the Special Court.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that
on 20-3-2020, a case was registered by NIA, New Delhi, in
RC-11/2020/NIA/DLI for commission of offences punishable
Sections 120B, 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, 'IPC') and under Sections 13 and 20 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'UAPA') arising out
of F.I.R. No.85 of 2020 dated 8-3-2020 of the Special Cell (SB)
Police Station, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, after arrest of
Jahanzaib Sami and his wife, Hina Bashir Beigh, on 8-3-2020,
for having affiliation with banned terrorist organisation, i.e.
Islamic State Khorasan Province, which is part of banned terror
organisation ISIS/Daesh and both were planning some
subversive/anti-national activities in India. During further
investigation of the case, another accused, Abdullah Basith,
was arrested on 17-3-2020 by the Special Cell, Delhi Police.
4. During investigation, three more accused, including
Abdul Rahman @ Dr. Brave, were arrested on 17-8-2020.
During custodial interrogation of Abdul Rahman, he revealed
that he along with Afroz Ahmed visited Syria in 2013-14 and
his visit was funded by members of a group namely "Quran
Circle". His explanation led to busting of a module of pro-ISIS
activists/terrorists, who had been active in Bengaluru in
identifying and radicalising gullible Muslim youths, recruiting,
raising funds and facilitating their visit to Syria illegally via
Turkey for joining and fighting for ISIS.
5. Subsequently, in compliance to the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, CTCR Division, Order
No.11011/61/2020/NIA dated 18-9-2020, NIA registered the
instant case as RC-33/2020/NIA/DLI dated 19-9-2020 under
Sections 120B and 125 of IPC and under Sections 17, 18 and
18B of UAPA.
6. Investigation further revealed that Irfan Nasir (accused
No.3) and Ahamed Abdul Cader (accused No.5-appellant
herein) entered into criminal conspiracy along with Mohd.
Tauqir Mahmood (accused No.1), Zohaib Manna (accused No.2)
and Mohd. Shihab (accused No.4) and other associates to wage
war against Syria, Asiatic Power in alliance with the
Government of India by radicalising, recruiting gullible Muslim
youths, raising funds and sending them to Syria illegally via
Turkey to join ISIS and to further ideology and activities of
ISIS.
7. In this regard, the appellant-accused No.5 was
arrested on 7-10-2020 as arrived in the charge-sheet, and
since then, he is in judicial custody. Thus, accused No.5 moved
bail application before the Special Court and the same was
dismissed on 26-6-2024.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the bail
application by the Special Court, accused No.5 has preferred
this appeal. The Special Court by the impugned order, rejected
the bail application holding that there are reasonable grounds
to believe that accused No.5 committed offences alleged
against him. The Special Court further held that having regard
to the material available on record with regard to commission
of offences under the provisions of UAPA, the Court is barred
from granting bail in view of Section 43D of UAPA. Challenging
the bail rejection, accused No.5 has preferred this appeal.
9. Sri Chandrasekhar R. P., learned counsel for the
appellant-accused No.5, submits that there is a delay in
conducting trial by the Special Court. The offences alleged
against accused No.5 under Sections 17, 18 and 18B of UAPA
are per se not attracted in the given set of facts and
circumstances. The necessary ingredients attracting Section 15
of UAPA are not made available in the charge-sheet. Hence, the
offences punishable under Sections 17, 18 and 18B of UAPA
would not get attracted at all. The allegations made by PWs.1
and 2 are vague, indefinite and flippant. The delay, at all levels
which is emanating in the case, casts serious doubt on the
credibility of the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has
not been able to provide clear and unambiguous material to
support the allegations that are made in the charge-sheet. On
the contrary, the prosecution has built up its case picking up
some stray material and also, those material have been used
out of context to make them appear incriminating. The
allegations leveled in the charge-sheet are not substantiated by
any strong material at all. The allegations leveled are slipshod,
slack and bungled up without there being any interlink to each
of the material collected. He further contended that there is no
mention of accused No.5 in an F.I.R. and thus, non-mentioning
of the name of accused No.5 in the F.I.R. goes to the root of
the matter and the shakes the very substratum of the case.
Further, MHA Order No.11011/61/2020/NIA dated 18-9-2020
also does not mention the name of accused No.5. This fact of
non-registration of the case against accused No.5 is very
critical, as NIA case is registered after thorough examination
and only after MHA order. The non-figuring of the name of
accused No.5 in the initial stage, in the given set of facts and
circumstances, assumes lot of relevance and in the context of
the way in which NIA cases are registered, shows that accused
No.5 had no role to play in the alleged case, hence his name
rightly was not found in the F.I.R. There is no explanation
forthcoming in the charge-sheet as to why the name of accused
No.5 was not found in the F.I.R. The inclusion of the name of
accused No.5 in the charge-sheet at later stages is also not
based on any sound and legal basis. Further, after due
deliberation and several concoctions, the name of accused No.5
has been included falsely. As per the case of the prosecution,
accused No.5 was present on 2-10-2020 and 3-10-2020.
Accused No.5 was left out on 2-10-2020 and again he came
back on 3-10-2020 to NIA Office, Bengaluru, and his arrest is
shown as 7-10-2020, which is wholly incorrect and false
statement made by NIA. He further contended that, accused
No.5 has 14 years of expertise in business analysis in
consulting, GRC (Governance, Risk and Compliance) technology
implementation, Information Security and IS audit. Accused
No.5 has completed significant number of projects helping
organisations improve governance and operational efficiency,
improving management of IT and operational risk, and
increasing compliance with regulatory requirements in the
United States, Europe and Asia. He married in the year 2015
and is blessed with baby boy in the year 2017. Further, he is
highly qualified person and has been a full time employee in
the reputed Companies. Now, he has been in custody for nearly
four years and five months. The prosecution has cited nearly
forty-eight witnesses in the case and the trial is in initial stages,
there are no likely chances of completion of trial in near future.
His father is aged more than 75 years and due to his advanced
age, he is suffering from age-old related ailments. Hence, the
presence of accused No.5 is very much required in his family.
Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.
10. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
relied on the following citations:
i. Gulfisha Fatima and Others v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10;
ii. Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Another
reported in (2023) 15 SCC 56;
iii. Sudesh Kedia v. Union of India reported in
(2021) 4 SCC 704;
iv. Jahir Hak v. State of Rajasthan reported in
(2022) 18 SCC 389;
v. Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari
v. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
No.2790 of 2024 disposed off on 18-7-2024, and
vi. National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home,
Government of India v. Areeb Ejaz Majeed reported
in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 239.
11. Per contra, Sri Sachin C., learned counsel appearing
for Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
the respondent-NIA, vehemently contended that the appellant-
accused No.5 previously approached the Special Court seeking
bail on three occasions and the same were rejected by the
Special Court. Accused No.5 has not indicated any changes in
law or circumstances to justify the filing of successive bail
applications before the Special Court and without any such
change, the successive application was not maintainable before
the Special Court. He further contended that during the course
of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the material
evidence indicating that accused No.5 was active worker of
- 10 -
unlawful organisation and he had organised several meetings
and had participated in the crime. He has further contended
that the investigation report clearly reveals that accused No.5
was member of Terrorist group and was part of criminal
conspiracy to wage war against the Government of Syria; he
was member of unlawful assembly with common object to
commit Terrorist act. The role of accused No.5 has been
established through the prosecution witnesses, statement of
protected witnesses and documentary/electronic evidence, and
hence, prima-facie case was made out against him. Hence, the
final report was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, before the Special Court and the Special
Court took cognizance of the offences committed by accused
No.5 and therefore, he prays for rejection of the appeal.
12. Considering the submissions made by both sides
and examining the material available on record, the point that
arises for consideration of this Court is:
"Whether the impugned order of rejection of bail
application suffers from any arbitrariness or
illegality warranting interference at the hands of
this Court?"
- 11 -
13. We have perused the material available on record.
Having conducted the investigation and the material collected,
the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against accused
No.3 and the appellant-accused No.5. Thereafter, accused No.1
was apprehended on 23-10-2021 and accused No.2 was
apprehended on 17-11-2021. The respondent-NIA, after
completion of investigation as against accused Nos.1 and 2,
have filed supplementary charge-sheet on 16-4-2022 and
accused No.4 is shown as absconding and evading the
investigation.
14. The investigation report clearly revealed that the
appellant-accused No.5, being active member of ISIS, along
with other co-accused and his associates had conspired to wage
war against the Government of Syria, the Asiatic Power in
alliance with the Government of India, by radicalising,
recruiting, providing funds and sending gullible Muslim youths
to Syria illegally via Turkey to join ISIS. It has come on record
that two of his associates, namely, Faiz Masood and
Muhammed, reached Syria illegally via Turkey and both were
killed while fighting for ISIS against the Government of Syria.
Investigation report further revealed that accused No.5 along
with other accused involved in identifying and radicalising
- 12 -
gullible Muslim youths, recruiting, raising funds and facilitating
their visit to Syria illegally via Turkey for joining and fighting for
ISIS against the Government of Syria.
15. Accused No.5 misutilised the IQRA Camp and Quran
Circle classes by showing said gullible Muslim youths doctored
videos, depicting atrocities allegedly committed by the Syrian
Government against Muslims. Accused No.5 provided
documentary videos/audio to the Muslim youths in hard disks
and pen drives and also shared links of websites, where they
could obtain material related to ISIS. Accused No.5 also
collected funds from the members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Accused
No.1 also shared emails showing his associates intending to
establish the Islamic State. The Investigation report and the
statement of witnesses appear that one Faiz Masood had
handed over Rs.50,000/- to accused No.1 and accused No.1
handed over the same to Anas Furruq to travel to Syria and to
fight on behalf of the banned terrorist organisation/ISIS. It is
further revealed in the investigation that accused No.1 along
with accused No.2 and the appellant-accused No.5 have
provided Rs.2.00 lakh to Afroz Ahmad for the purpose of tickets
and visa. Accused No.5 and other accused persons collected
funds and provided the same to CWs.1 and 2 to enable them to
- 13 -
act on behalf of their ideology in establishing the Islamic State
and fighting against the Government of Syria. Faiz Masood and
Muhammed were killed in Syria, whereas Anas Furruq and
Abdur Rahman sustained bullet injuries while fighting for ISIS
in Syria.
16. From the material available on record, it clearly
shows that accused No.5 was member of Terrorist group and
was part of criminal conspiracy to wage war against the
Government of Syria, he was member of unlawful assembly
with common object to commit Terrorist act. The role of the
accused No.5 has been established through the prosecution
witnesses, statement of protected witnesses and electronic
evidence and prima-facie, case has been laid out against
accused No.5. The final report was filed under Section 173 of
Cr.P.C. before the Special Court and the Special Court took
cognizance for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the
respondent-NIA relied on the depositions of PW19, who has
clearly stated about the role played by accused No.5 in sending
PW19 to Syria. He has categorically stated that the appellant
and others induced PW19 to go through Quran and to read the
Quran properly, and also induced him that there was atrocity in
Syria against Muslims and also shown several emails,
- 14 -
documentary videos, etc. and they induced him to go Syria and
accordingly, they funded him to visit Syria. PW19 in categorical
terms stated how he visited Syria, suffered injuries and how he
came back to Bengaluru. It shows that accused No.5 also
funded PW19 to visit Syria, which is a part of ISIS activities.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.5 relied
on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Gulfisha Fatima and Others v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10; in the case
Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in
(2023) 15 SCC 56; in the case Sudesh Kedia v. Union of
India reported in (2021) 4 SCC 704; in the case of Jahir
Hak v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2022) 18 SCC 389;
in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed
Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
No.2790 of 2024 disposed off on 18-7-2024, and in the
case of National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home,
Government of India v. Areeb Ejaz Majeed reported in
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 239.
18. While the principle of "bail is the rule" applies
generally, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that it does not
- 15 -
apply to 'UAPA cases'. Further, even if a trial is delayed, bail
can be rejected, if the accusations are grave and appear
credible.
19. Perusal of the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that
the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra are not
aptly applicable to the case on hand since the appellant-
accused No.5 was member of Terrorist group and was part of
criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of
Syria, he funded PW19 to visit Syria, suffered injuries and
returned India (Bengaluru). PW19 has categorically stated
before the Court on oath that accused No.5 was actively
involved in Terrorist activities.
20. Considering the entire material available on record,
the Special Court rightly rejected the bail application of the
appellant-accused No.5 and the same does not require
interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, we pass
the following
ORDER
i. Criminal appeal is dismissed.
- 16 -
ii. The Special Court is directed to expedite the trial.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending
applications, if any, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
