Bombay HC Upholds Rejection of Bail in NIA Case Linked to Killing Over Social Media Post Supporting Nupur Sharma

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a veterinary doctor seeking bail in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency relating to the murder of a shop owner in Amravati, holding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true and attract the statutory bar on bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2024, which challenged an order passed by the Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, rejecting the appellant’s bail application.

The appellant, Yusuf Khan, arrayed as Accused No. 6, is facing prosecution in RC No. 02/2022/NIA/MUM for offences under Sections 109, 120B, 302, 153A, 201 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA.

According to the prosecution, the case has its genesis in a controversial television debate held on 26 May 2022, during which an erstwhile spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Nupur Sharma, made remarks that led to widespread outrage. In the aftermath, multiple FIRs were registered across the country, and the atmosphere in Amravati became tense.

The prosecution alleges that on 14.06.2022, the deceased Umesh Kolhe, a veterinary medical shop owner, posted a WhatsApp message in support of the said remarks in a group named “Black Freedom,” which included veterinary professionals. The appellant, who was the only Muslim member of that group, allegedly took offence to the post.

The Court noted that the appellant took a screenshot of the deceased’s post, altered the deceased’s mobile number to expose his identity, added an instigating message in Hindi urging others to convey consequences to the deceased, and circulated the same widely across other WhatsApp groups and individuals. The prosecution contends that this act was done with the intention of provoking anger, spreading hatred, and instigating violence against the deceased.

The NIA further alleged that the appellant met Accused No. 5 shortly thereafter and that this meeting marked the beginning of a criminal conspiracy. Subsequent meetings among co-accused followed, during which it was allegedly decided to eliminate the deceased.

On 21.06.2022, the deceased was stabbed in the neck and killed while returning home after closing his shop.

The FIR was initially registered by the local police and later taken over by the NIA following directions from the Central Government. Sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA was granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and a charge sheet was filed after completion of investigation.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that his intention was limited to economically boycotting the deceased and that he was not part of subsequent meetings where the murder was planned. He also relied on the long period of incarceration, the absence of direct evidence, and the weak evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions attributed to co-accused.

The prosecution, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, opposed bail, contending that the appellant’s actions constituted the first step in a planned conspiracy and that his WhatsApp activity, alteration of the deceased’s contact details, repeated meetings, and multiple phone calls with co-accused demonstrated active participation.

The Bench undertook a detailed examination of the material placed with the charge sheet and noted that over 25 phone calls were exchanged between the appellant and Accused No. 5 before and after the crime. The Court also relied upon the timing, language, and circulation of the instigating message, holding that it was capable of provoking violent action in an already volatile social environment.

Referring to Section 14 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the appellant’s conduct was relevant to establish intention and state of mind. It further held that conspiracy is usually proved through circumstantial evidence and that physical presence at every meeting is not necessary to infer a meeting of minds.

The Bench applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah, holding that at the bail stage, the Court must only assess whether the accusations are prima facie true based on broad probabilities without conducting a detailed evaluation of evidence.

Finding that the materials disclosed a prima facie case of involvement in a terrorist conspiracy intended to strike fear in society, the Court held that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA squarely applied.

It concluded that the gravity and nature of the offence did not warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of bail.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Yusuf Khan s/o Bahadur Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Date of Order: 20.01.2026

Bench: Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak