CASE NAME: Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh @ Rishaan Thajuddin @ Rishan v. The National Investigation Agency
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal No. 1548 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
DATE: 22 January 2026
BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
FACTS
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh who is about 22 years old on 5 January 2023 because they investigated his connection to terrorist activities. Police took custody of a black Redmi Note 5 Pro mobile phone which contained an Airtel SIM card and a micro-SD card during his arrest. The appellant explained that he attended college with Maaz Muneer Ahmed who is accused No. 2 at PA College of Engineering Mangaluru. The second accused alleged that he converted the appellant into a terrorist who would conduct operations for the banned Islamic State terrorist group. The second accused sent the appellant videos and PDF files which showed ISIS beheadings and contained jihadi material and radicalized maulana bayans and instructions on building Molotov cocktails. The appellant received cryptocurrency through his Zebpay account which he obtained from online handlers’ and he received additional crypto funds into his college friend’s Shadab account. The appellant conducted reconnaissance operations which included electric substations and boatyards and gas stations and oil tankers and commercial establishments in Mangaluru. He participated in the arson attack on an Innova car in Mangaluru and the paint shop in Bramhavara. The investigation found reconnaissance images and arson pictures and news articles on the devices they seized. The appellant used cryptocurrency which he obtained from an online handler known as “Colonel” to buy a Honda Activa scooter that he used to support terrorist activities. The Trial Court rejected the bail petition on 20 May 2025 for Special Case No 706/2023 at the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (NIA Special Court) CCH-50 Bangalore. The appellant filed an appeal to contest the denial of his bail.
ISSUES
- Whether the existing prima facie evidence substantiates for appellant’s involvement in terrorist activities as a member of a proscribed organization under UAPA.
- Whether Section 43D(5) of UAPA refrains bar applications when prima facie material supports allegations of terrorism irrespective of considerations for bail.
- Whether acts committed such as facilitating cryptocurrency transfer, recruitment radicalization and arson constitute enough prime facie grounds to establish terrorist conspiracy under Sections 15 to 18 of UAPA.
- Whether evidence corroborates terrorism involvement justify bail denial under stringent, terrorism, sentencing framework.
- Whether material evidence corroborating terrorist involvement justifies bail denial under stringent terrorism sentencing framework.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 120B, IPC, 1860: Criminal conspiracy.
- Section 121A, IPC, 1860: Attempt to wage war against government.
- Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39, 40, UAPA, 1967: Membership in terrorist organization; preparation for terrorist act; acts in furtherance of terrorist organization; payment for terrorist act.
- Section 15, UAPA, 1967: Definition of terrorist act and criminal conspiracy therefor.
- Section 43D(5) of UAPA, 1967: provide statutory board against bail applications when prima facie grounds exist for believing that accusation against the person committing such punishable offense under UAPA.
- Section 427, 435, IPC, 1860: Mischief and arson offenses.
- Section 2, Karnataka State Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981: Property destruction prohibition.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
The defense attorney argued that the Trial Court made a mistake when it denied the bail request. The prosecution bases its case against the defendant on conjecture and surmise without any evidence that proves his guilt. The defendant said he did not take part in the activities that had been accused against him. The Trial Court accepted the prosecution case without any proof because it failed to consider the defense arguments present before it. The prosecution failed to prove any of the necessary elements from Section 15 UAPA against the defendant. The prosecution did not present any evidence which proved that the defendant had engaged in criminal conspiracy for terrorist act commission or preparatory acts according to Section 15 definition. The activities of sharing cryptocurrency accounts and converting funds serve as financial support only, which does not establish either conspiracy or preparatory activities. The allegations under Sections 38, 39, 40 UAPA were imaginary without material substantiation.
RESPONDENT (NIA):
The Special Public Prosecutor from NIA declared that existing charges had already been formulated and that the trial process had begun. The final investigation report showed that the defendant participated in terrorist money transfers and activities that contributed to warfare planning. The detailed objection statement, which contains supporting annexures, has been submitted. The Section 43D (5) UAPA regulation requires bail denial when there are established prima facie evidence grounds to do so. The court rejected similar allegations against accused Nos. 6 and 10 because they did not meet the necessary requirements in earlier court decisions. The FSL report confirmed that the prosecution case had been substantiated through reconnaissance images and cryptocurrency involvement and arson participation.
ANALYSIS
Justice H.P. Sandesh delivered his oral judgment through the Division Bench judgment after he studied all evidence which showed that the defendant had terrorist ties. The court evaluated the Trial Court’s explanation which showed that the appellant had been recruited by accused No. 2 because he had been radicalized through ISIS materials which included beheading videos and bomb-making tutorials. The court established a direct relationship between the appellant and accused No. 2 because they attended the same college which created a pathway for recruitment while accused No. 2 started his radicalization process by sharing extremist materials. The appellant received cryptocurrency from the online handler “Colonel” which showed his connection to terrorist financial networks. The appellant conducted surveillance activities which included taking photographs of essential facilities such as electrical substations and boatyards and gas stations and oil tankers. The appellant actively took part in setting fire to Innova vehicles and commercial property. The FSL report confirmed that the retrieved images showed the locations which the defendant used for reconnaissance and his involvement in arson activities. The court stated that Section 43D(5) UAPA requires judges to deny bail because prima facie evidence shows that the defendant faces terrorism charges. The court established that regular criminal offenses allow judges to decide on bail matters while terrorism financing and conspiracy charges require bail to be denied when prosecutors establish their case. The court reported that the Trial Court had studied the appellant’s activities from paragraphs 21 to 29 and his crypto-currency involvement through paragraph 38 and Supreme Court terrorism law through paragraphs 50 to 53. The court utilized past Supreme Court decisions from Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Ram Kishore Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 7 SCC 599 to show that strict material examination determines case outcomes.
JUDGMENT
The Division Bench found that the appellant could not show enough evidence to qualify for bail. The court confirmed that all evidence which included terrorist handlers transferring cryptocurrencies and their recruitment process through radicalization and the defendant’s participation in reconnaissance activities and arson and the digital materials that authorities found together established enough evidence to support a case against the defendant who faced UAPA terrorist charges. The court determined that Section 43D(5) UAPA created a legal barrier which stopped the court from granting bail when there existed prima facie evidence that proved the defendant’s terrorist activities. The trial court properly denied the bail application because it examined all available evidence. The criminal appeal has been rejected by the court.
CONCLUSION
The court ruling establishes mandatory legal standards which define how Section 43D(5) UAPA handles bail requests in terrorism-related cases. The UAPA law system requires that defendants prove their entitlement to bail because they face presumption of innocence which applies to all criminal defendants. The Reeshaan case shows how judges investigate terrorist funding systems and methods of creating radicalized individuals and using cryptocurrencies for illegal activities and the connection between reconnaissance operations and arson schemes. The ruling establishes that religious radicalization together with financial infrastructure backing and active surveillance involvement and destruction of property activities create enough evidence to prove terrorism exists which prevents bail from being granted. The judgment establishes that courts will not permit bail for terrorism cases which lack confession evidence because they need to analyze all circumstantial proof and evaluate the suspected conspiracy structure.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: KRISHNA KOUSHIK
