Karnataka High Court
Syed Ikramuddin @ Syed Naveed vs National Investigation Agency on 20 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2142 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SYED IKRAMUDDIN @ SYED NAVEED
S/O SYED JAMALUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O NO. 5/3, KUSHAL NAGAR
5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
HANIFIYA MASJID ROAD
KG HALLI BANGALORE 560 045
2. SYED ASIF
S/O SYED AKBAR
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
by DEVIKA M R/O NO. 119/1 11TH CROSS
Location: HIGH KG HALLI BM LAYOUT
COURT OF BANGALORE 560 045
KARNATAKA
3. MOHAMMED ATIF
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O NO. 594, 5TH CROSS
BASAA NAGAR KG HALLI
BANGALORE 560 045
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
REP BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPL.PP.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED
IN SPL.CC NO.141/2021 BY THE XLIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR NIA CASES,
BENGALURU, AGAINST THE APPELLANT REDUCED THE
SENTENCE OF THE APPELLANTS FROM 7 YEARS TO THE
MINIMUM 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT U/S 120B, 143, 144, 145,
148, 153A, 188, 353, 427, R/W 149 OF IPC, SEC.2 OF THE
KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF
PROPERTY ACT AND 16, 18 AND 20 OF UA(P)A ACT, WHILE
MAINTAINING THE CONVICTION. THE ACCUSED NOS. 14, 16
AND 18 ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) YEARS AND ARE
LIABLE TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2,000/- EACH FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B OF THE IPC. IN DEFAULT
OF PAYMENT OF THE FINE, THEY SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB
CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The order challenged before this Court is dated 08.07.2025, wherein accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 have filed an application under Section 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') to plead guilty and the same was allowed by the trial Court. After allowing the same, the trial Court passed an order to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act of 1967') with fine; simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 188 read with Section 149 of IPC; simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offences punishable under Sections 144, 145, -4- NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025 HC-KAR 147, 353, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC with fine; simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 with fine and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 149 of IPC with fine.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the appellants have voluntarily made an application to plead the guilty. However, it is contended that the Trial Court has imposed seven years of imprisonment whereas Section 16 and 18 of the Act of 1967 prescribes minimum 5 years, thus, the punishment is exorbitant. The counsel also would submit that the same can be reduced when minimum sentence is 5 years for the offences punishable under Sections 16 and 18 of the Act of 1967. The counsel also would submit that 7 years rigorous imprisonment is exorbitant when the minimum sentence is prescribed for the said offences i.e., 5 years when also they voluntarily pleaded guilty. The said fact has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court on the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025 HC-KAR ground of socio-economic background and also the family responsibilities.
4. The counsel appearing to the respondent would submit that the Trial Court has taken note of gravity of the offences wherein it is a mob fury and also contend that even though minimum sentence is 5 years for the said offences but it is the discretion of the Court to impose sentence and the Trial Court taking into note of the gravity of the offences, imposed imprisonment for a period of seven years.
5. In reply to this argument, counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants have already undergone a sentence for a period of five years three months and the same has to be modified to six years. The counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the said submission.
6. Having taken note of the submission of respective counsel and also on perusal of the order impugned, it is very clear that the appellants have voluntarily made the application for pleading guilty and the same was considered by the Trial Court. When the appellants have approached the Trial Court for -6- NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025 HC-KAR pleading guilty, the same is explained to the accused and the same is noted in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Trial Court as accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 and the SPP were present before the Court and Court explained the consequences of pleading guilty to accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 and the said accused persons prays time to think over and submit on 24.06.2025 in respect of the application filed by them under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. and hence, directed to produce them on 24.06.2025. On that day also, the Trial Court explained the same and even asked the said accused and the same has been narrated in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Trial Court that the charges levelled against them and Court's power also explained and after hearing, the Trial Court made understand the consequences of pleading guilty to accused Nos.14, 16 and 18 who are the appellants herein who voluntarily made submission that they are ready to plead guilty for the charges levelled against them. Having considered this aspect into consideration, in paragraph 15, the Trial Court satisfied that the accused have unconditionally admitted the acts committed by them and they voluntarily come forward to plead guilty to the charges levelled against them and also taken note of the -7- NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025 HC-KAR offences which have been invoked against them and imposed the sentence of seven years.
7. Having considered the materials available on record and the submission and also the punishment for terrorist act under Section 16 of the Act of 1967 wherein Section 16(b) is very clear that be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine and so also in respect of Section 18 of the Act of 1967 is concerned, shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine and so also in Section 17 of the Act of 1967 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. But no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 20 of the Act of 1967. However, taking into note of the application filed under Section 229 of Cr.P.C. as well as the reasons pointed out, the Trial Court taken note of the relevant provisions when the accused persons voluntarily came up before the Trial Court without insisting for trial and voluntarily ready for pleading guilty. Hence, the Trial -8- NC: 2026:KHC:2900-DB CRL.A No. 2142 of 2025 HC-KAR Court ought to have taken note of Sections 16 and 18 of the Act of 1967. However, in Section 20 of the Act of 1967, no minimum sentence is prescribed but it is stated that shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life that means, it may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case wherein it was a mob fury and such incident was taken place, it is appropriate to modify the order of sentence for a period of six years instead of seven years in keeping in view of the very aspect of pleading guilty and the pleading of guilty is to get the benefit of minimum sentence and no modification with regard to the fine is concerned. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16