Bengaluru Court Grants Bail To Accused In Ballari ISIS Module Case Over Allegedly Recruiting Vulnerable Youth As 'Mujahideen'

A special court recently granted bail to seven accused, allegedly involved in the Ballari ISIS module case. The accused are charged with recruitment and radicalization of vulnerable youth as mujahideen to operate as terrorist sleeper cells.

The Special court passed separate orders on the applications filed by the accused Anas Iqbal Shaikh, M D Sulaiman @ Minaj, Mohammed Muniruddin, Syed Sameer, Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu, Shayan Rehman @ Hussain and Muzamil M.D.

The accused are charged under Sections 120B and 153A of the IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 13(1)(b) and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.A.(P) Act').

It is alleged that the accused are involved in anti-national activities. They conspired to recruit 50 Mujahideens in each district of India by 2025, with the intent of waging jihad against the Government of India and its institutions, including the police, army, judiciary, and specific religious organizations. Their goal was to threaten the unity, integrity, security, and sovereignty of India by using firearms, weapons, explosives, and other means to cause loss of life and property, thereby striking terror into specific sections of the population in India. All of this was aimed at establishing a Caliphate system in India. To further their conspiracy, they collected weapons, explosive substances, and even conducted a trial blast.

The primary contention raised by the accused was that the grounds of arrest were not provided to them immediately after their arrest. According to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrestee in writing; failure to do so entitles the accused to immediate bail.

Reliance was placed on Apex court judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another (2025 SC OnLine SC 269), Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 13320/2024, decided on 07.02.2025 and order of High Court of Karnataka in Sri Darshan vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 11096/2024 C/W Criminal Petition Nos. 11176/2024, 11180/2024, 11212/2024, 11282/2024, 11735/2024, and 12912/2024.

The prosecution opposed the plea contending the seriousness of the crime and also noted that the accused were arrested in 2023 and produced before the Court. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would have retrospective operation, lacks merit and finds no basis in law. He has further contended that if bail is granted to accused they are likely to tamper with the prosecution's evidence or influence prosecution witnesses, which would impede the prosecution's case.

The court on going through the records and the Apex court judgments said “The records reveal that accused Nos. 3, 4, and 8 were arrested on 18.12.2023 and subsequently produced before this Court. There is no material on record indicating that the grounds of arrest were provided to accused Nos. 3, 4, and 8 in writing immediately after their arrest. Even the learned counsel representing the learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly admitted that the grounds of arrest were not served on accused Nos. 3, 4 and 8 in writing at the time of their arrest.”

It held “In the present case, as noted above, accused Nos. 3, 4, and 8 were arrested on 18.12.2023, and the grounds of arrest in writing were not furnished to them immediately after their arrest. Therefore, the failure to provide the grounds of arrest renders them entitled to bail on this ground.”

Further it said, “Given these serious charges, it is both just and necessary to impose stringent conditions on accused Nos. 3, 4, and 8, as their release on bail is based solely on technical grounds, namely the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing.”

Accordingly it allowed the applications and directed release of the accused on them executing a personal bond for Rs. 2,00,000 each, with two local sureties for the like sum. They are directed to appear before the court regularly. They shall not use any other mobile numbers except the mobile number provided to this Court and the Superintendent of Police, NIA, Bengaluru, until the conclusion of the case.

Click Here To Read/Download Order