Bengaluru/Mangaluru: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court in Bengaluru yesterday sentenced the prime accused in the Mangaluru cooker bomb case to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs. 94,000.

Mohamed Shariq had initially claimed innocence in the case, but later pleaded guilty under Section 229 of Cr.PC in December 2025, which the Special Court accepted.

According to the prosecution, Shariq was carrying the pressure cooker IED (Improvised Explosive Device) in an autorickshaw and planned to plant it at Mangaluru’s Kadri Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple to spread terror among the Hindu community. The low-intensity bomb, however, accidentally exploded on the way on Nov. 19, 2022.

Shariq (Accused No. 1) was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of                     Rs. 5,000 under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. He was also sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 465 (forgery) and 471 (using forged documents), with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each.

The Court further awarded 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under Sections 121A (waging war conspiracy), 122 (collecting arms with intent to wage war), 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (causing grievous hurt).

Under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the accused was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000 each under Sections 16(b), 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40.

Additionally, under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, he was awarded 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines of Rs. 5,000 each under Sections 3(a) and 5(a).

The Court ordered that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently. In case of default in payment of fines, additional imprisonment ranging from one to six months has been prescribed for different counts.

The Court also ordered that the period already undergone in Judicial Custody be set off against the sentence under Section 428 of the Cr.PC. The fine amount, once recovered, will be utilised towards defraying prosecution expenses.

Advocates said, the Court directed that a soft copy of the order be provided to the accused through e-mail and a hard copy be sent by post, as his presence was secured through video conferencing. A warrant of conviction has been ordered to be issued.

In the same case, the Judicial Custody of Accused No. 2 has been extended till May 21, 2026, and jail authorities have been directed to produce the accused through video conferencing on that date.