Karnataka High Court Upholds Seven-Year Sentence for Terror Convicts Citing Severity of Offences Under UAPA

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed the appeal of two men convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), who sought a reduction of their seven-year sentence to five years. The Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod emphasized that the gravity of the offences committed by the appellants did not justify any leniency from the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335]

In its order, the court clarified that a reduction of sentence is not a matter of right for terror convicts, even when they plead guilty without trial. The bench stated, “The Trial Court considering the gravity of the offence, imposed sentence of 7 years proportionate to the crime committed by the appellants and the appellants also as a matter of right cannot claim to impose minimum sentence of only 5 years and it is the discretion of the Court to impose the same, even though the accused persons have pleaded guilty without trial.”

The appellants, Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain and Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md. Jubal @ Md. Jubab, were convicted by the Bengaluru Special Court for NIA Cases under multiple provisions of the UAPA, including Sections 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities), 18 (Punishment for Conspiracy), 38 (Offence Relating to Membership of a Terrorist Organization), and 39 (Offence Relating to Support Given to a Terrorist Organization). They were also convicted under Sections 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), 121-A (Conspiracy to Commit Offence Against the State), 153-A (Promoting Enmity), and 153-B (Imputations, Assertions Prejudicial to National Integration) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants had been incarcerated for the past four years.

Prior to the hearing, the High Court sought reports from the jail authorities regarding the conduct of the appellants during their incarceration and from their probation officer concerning their antecedents. However, the court found the probation officer’s report to be based solely on statements made by the accused themselves, without independent verification. Similarly, the Jail Superintendent’s report lacked clarity on sentencing details and did not express any opinion on whether the convicts had reformed or shown remorse.

The court also took note of the trial court’s findings that the appellants were active participants in various Telegram groups and maintained constant contact with foreign terrorist organizations. According to the prosecution, which the trial court affirmed, the accused were planning to enter Afghanistan via Kashmir to join Al-Qaeda. The charges substantiated included radicalizing and recruiting youth for banned terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Indian Mujaheddin.

Further, the trial court found that the appellants were conspiring to procure arms to wage war against India. The accused had expressed their willingness to sacrifice their lives for terrorist organizations, underscoring the seriousness of their intent.

The High Court underscored the fundamental nature of the offences, stating, “The Court has to take note of the very ingredients of the offences which have been invoked against them and the material collected during custodial investigation of accused Nos.1 and 2 is nothing but involving in the activities to wage war against the very Country in which they have born and living.”

The appellants’ counsel relied on a prior judgment by the same court in Crl.A.No.2142/2025 dated January 20, 2026, where a sentence was reduced from seven years to six years in a mob fury case. The court distinguished that precedent, noting, “But, here is a case where accused persons were planning to wage war against the Country. Hence, the said judgment will not come to the aid of the appellants to reduce the sentence from 7 years to 5 years.”

The case is styled Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md. Jubal @ Md. Jubab v. NIA & Ors.