Bengaluru : The Karnataka High Court has upheld the seven-year prison sentence imposed on two men convicted in a terror-related case, rejecting their plea to reduce the punishment to five years.
A Division Bench comprising Justice H P Sandesh and Justice B Pramod observed that the material collected during the investigation showed the accused had been involved in activities aimed at waging war against India, the country in which they were born and lived.
The court passed its order on September 2 while hearing an appeal seeking reduction of the sentence imposed by the trial court.
The case involved allegations of links with Al-Qaeda, radicalisation of young people and plans to travel abroad for terrorist training. Investigators also recovered electronic material that the prosecution said was connected to extremist organisations.
Accused sought reduction to five years
The two men had been sentenced to seven years in prison by the trial court in Bengaluru on October 27, 2023.
Through their appeal, they sought reduction of the sentence to the minimum five years prescribed for the offences.
Their lawyer argued that the accused had pleaded guilty, had already spent more than four years in custody, had expressed remorse and had reformed themselves during their imprisonment.
The defence also relied on a previous Karnataka High Court decision in which a seven-year sentence in another case had been reduced to six years.
The prosecution opposed the request, arguing that the nature and seriousness of the offences did not justify a reduction.
Court highlights gravity of alleged activities
The High Court did not accept the argument that a guilty plea automatically entitled the accused to a five-year sentence.
The Bench noted that the trial court had considered the seriousness of the offences before imposing seven years.
According to the judgment, the accused could not claim as a matter of right that the sentence should be reduced simply because they had pleaded guilty.
The court stressed that sentencing must take into account the nature and gravity of the offence.
It distinguished the case from the earlier judgment cited by the defence, noting that the present matter concerned allegations of planning to wage war against the country.
Evidence found on electronic devices
The investigation produced electronic evidence that became an important part of the case.
The High Court took note of videos, audio recordings, photographs and chat messages recovered from devices belonging to the accused.
The material was alleged to have links with terrorist organisations and extremist activities.
The prosecution’s case was that the accused were not merely expressing extremist views but were involved in efforts connected with recruitment, radicalisation and preparations for terrorist activity.
The court considered this material while assessing the seriousness of the offences.
Alleged plans to join Al-Qaeda
According to the prosecution case, the two men had planned to travel to Afghanistan through Kashmir and Pakistan to join Al-Qaeda.
The investigation alleged that they were involved in radicalising and recruiting young people and discussing arrangements for sending them for terrorist training.
One of the accused was allegedly associated with a Telegram group called “Khorasan Eagle”, while electronic material recovered from his phone reportedly included content relating to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
The other accused was associated with groups described in the investigation as promoting extremist ideology, including a group he allegedly created.
The prosecution also alleged that discussions had taken place regarding the procurement and transportation of weapons.
Allegations of youth radicalisation
The trial court had earlier taken note of allegations that the accused attempted to influence young people and encourage them to participate in extremist activities.
According to the case material, the alleged plan involved sending recruits towards Kashmir and Afghanistan’s Khorasan region for terrorist training.
The prosecution also alleged that religious rhetoric was used to encourage individuals to wage war against India.
The High Court’s decision focused on the seriousness of these alleged activities while considering whether the punishment should be reduced.
Guilty plea did not guarantee shorter sentence
One of the central arguments before the High Court was that the accused had pleaded guilty.
A guilty plea can have a bearing on sentencing, and the defence argued that the men’s admission of guilt, time already spent in custody and subsequent conduct should justify a reduction.
However, the Bench held that these circumstances did not outweigh the gravity of the offences in this case.
The court noted that the trial court had already imposed a sentence proportionate to the crimes after considering the relevant circumstances.
It therefore declined to interfere with the seven-year punishment.
Court questions evidence of reformation
The defence also pointed to reports concerning the conduct of the accused while in prison.
The court examined the probation officer’s report and the report from Bengaluru Central Prison.
However, the Bench noted that the probation report was based largely on statements made by the accused themselves, while the prison report described their behaviour as satisfactory in brief terms.
The court found that these reports were not sufficient, in the circumstances of the case, to establish grounds for reducing the sentence.
NIA opposed reduction
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which prosecuted the case, strongly opposed the plea for a shorter sentence.
Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar and advocate Sachin C represented the agency before the High Court.
The NIA maintained that the accused had been planning to travel to Afghanistan through Kashmir and Pakistan to join Al-Qaeda.
It also pointed to allegations concerning weapons procurement and preparations for terrorist activity.
The agency argued that the seriousness of the alleged conduct warranted the seven-year sentence imposed by the trial court.
High Court refuses to interfere
After examining the case material, the Division Bench concluded that the circumstances did not justify reducing the sentence.
The court noted that the offences and the evidence gathered during the investigation demonstrated the seriousness of the conduct alleged against the accused.
The Bench also rejected the argument that the minimum sentence of five years should automatically apply.
It held that sentencing within the applicable legal framework remains a matter for judicial discretion, particularly when the gravity of the offence warrants a higher punishment.
Previous judgment did not apply
The defence had referred to a January 20, 2026 Karnataka High Court ruling in which a seven-year sentence in a mob-fury case had been reduced to six years.
The Bench said that decision could not assist the accused in the present matter.
The judges distinguished the earlier case because the current proceedings involved allegations of planning to wage war against India.
The distinction underscored the court’s view that sentences must be assessed according to the facts and seriousness of each individual case.
Court’s observation on national security
In its order, the High Court made a strong observation about the nature of the alleged activities.
The Bench said the material collected during the custodial investigation indicated involvement in activities aimed at waging war against the country in which the accused were born and lived.
The observation formed part of the court’s reasoning for refusing to reduce the sentence.
The judgment also demonstrates the importance courts place on evidence concerning preparations for organised terrorist activity, rather than considering only whether an actual attack was carried out.
Seven-year sentences remain in place
With the High Court dismissing the appeal, the seven-year prison sentences imposed on both men remain unchanged.
The ruling reinforces that a guilty plea, satisfactory conduct in prison or a period already spent in custody does not necessarily result in a reduction where the court considers the underlying offences particularly grave.
The decision also underlines the judiciary’s approach to sentencing in cases involving alleged terrorist conspiracies and attempts to facilitate extremist activities.
Broader significance of the ruling
The judgment comes amid continued judicial scrutiny of cases involving online radicalisation, terrorist recruitment and the use of digital platforms to communicate with extremist networks.
The recovery of chats, videos, photographs and other digital material has increasingly become an important component of investigations into alleged terror conspiracies.
In the present case, such material formed part of the evidence considered by the courts.
The ruling therefore carries significance beyond the individual sentences, particularly in demonstrating how courts assess digital evidence alongside other material gathered during an investigation.
A firm stance on terror-related offences
The Karnataka High Court’s decision makes clear that the seriousness of an alleged terrorist conspiracy remains a crucial consideration at the sentencing stage.
While the accused had sought the minimum five-year punishment, the court found that the seven-year sentence imposed by the trial court was proportionate to the gravity of the offences.
The appeal was consequently dismissed.
The decision leaves the sentences of the two convicted men unchanged and reinforces the principle that sentencing cannot be reduced solely because an accused has pleaded guilty when the circumstances of the case point to serious threats to national security.