Bengaluru: Threats transmitted through a keyboard can have consequences as real as those delivered in person, the Karnataka high court has observed while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a Delhi resident accused of sending emails threatening bomb blasts at Kempegowda International Airport (KIA) and several shopping malls in Bengaluru.Justice M Nagaprasanna, in an order passed on Sept 1, dismissed a petition filed by Abhay Shee, who challenged the case registered against him by Bengaluru Cybercrime police over emails allegedly sent in Nov 2025.“The law cannot permit the electronic medium to become a convenient cloak behind which an individual may assume another’s identity, issue threats of catastrophic violence and then seek immunity from prosecution by disputing internet connectivity,” the judge observed.The case concerns emails allegedly invoking the name of the proscribed terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed. According to the material considered by the court, the email identified KIA and several shopping malls as targets, with the blasts allegedly scheduled to begin at 7pm. It also demanded payment to avert the threatened attacks.Internet connection at centre of defenceShee challenged the proceedings, which are pending before a Bengaluru court, under BNS Section 351(4) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.His principal contention was that the internet connection to his computer had become defunct on Nov 30, 2025, the date on which the threatening emails were allegedly transmitted. He argued with the means of electronic communication disabled, it was inherently improbable that he could have authored and sent the emails to the Bengaluru police commissioner’s office.Opposing the petition, the govt advocate submitted that substantial investigation had been completed and the material collected by investigators needed to be tested at trial.Fear & disruption are consequences tooThe court emphasised that the seriousness of a terrorism-related threat does not depend solely on whether the accused intended to carry it out. Even a false threat can generate fear among citizens, disrupt public tranquillity and force law enforcement agencies to divert resources to establish whether the danger is real.The court noted that police cannot afford to presume that threats to public safety are hoaxes. They must act cautiously because dismissing a genuine warning could have grave consequences.While acknowledging that individual liberty must be protected against prosecutions lacking a legal foundation, Justice Nagaprasanna said that liberty could not be treated as a licence to allegedly manufacture threats of public catastrophe and subsequently seek to have the prosecution extinguished without judicial scrutiny.The dismissal of the petition allows the proceedings to continue, with the allegations yet to be established through the judicial process.
