Bengaluru Airport, Malls Bomb-Threat Email: Karnataka HC Rejects Accused’s Bid To Quash Case Over Claim His Internet Was Down

The petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings arising from an email sent to the Bengaluru City Police Commissioner on 30 November 2025, threatening bomb blasts at Kempegowda International Airport and several Bengaluru malls.

The FIR was initially registered under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000; after investigation, the charge sheet alleged offences under Section 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66D of the IT Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner created email accounts using another person’s identity and used them to send the threat.

The petitioner sought quashing, principally arguing that his internet connection was not functioning on the date of the email.

Whether the petitioner’s claim that his internet connection was inoperative on the date of the alleged email was sufficient to quash the charge-sheet proceedings

Whether the High Court could determine, at the quashing stage, disputed questions concerning authorship, transmission and attribution of the email, and the ingredients of the charged offences

Section 351(4) of the BNS provides enhanced punishment where criminal intimidation is committed through anonymous communication or after precautions are taken to conceal the threatener’s identity; it must be read with the substantive ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 351(1).

Section 66D of the IT Act applies to cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource and requires personation and the ingredients of cheating.

Exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court must not conduct a mini-trial or decide disputed factual and evidentiary questions; after a charge sheet is filed, the investigation material may be considered, but its merits and disputed weight are ordinarily for trial.

The Court applied Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35, which reiterates that quashing is exceptional and that disputed evidence cannot be weighed as in an appeal or trial.

The Court considered the charge-sheet allegations that the petitioner had created email accounts in another person’s name and sent an anonymous threat invoking a terrorist organisation and identifying public places as targets.

Those allegations supplied a prima facie basis for the offences, subject to proof of each statutory ingredient at trial.

The alleged failure of one internet connection did not conclusively establish that the email could not have been sent, since an email account could be accessed through other devices or networks.

Whether the connection was actually inoperative, and what the electronic trail established, were disputed matters requiring evidentiary examination rather than resolution in quashing proceedings.

The writ petition was rejected; I.A. No. 1/2026 was disposed of as a consequence.